HomeMy WebLinkAbout1032 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report� a^^�
_.�
�� .�
r -
�4:��
r...
�
�
�i' :L �� I I`' � � �
i i , #. ;
.µ.�.�� ' . .. F�,� .
a y= . '
� � --- _ _ a
+ . — _ . — ,. �
.. ' � .k. � �.
;'4i `'i � y . .. . � � � .
"i. 3} tiN�Y. . s�.:�. . .." ' '
"i! r ,s,,. ' - t
� ^\::' ..�:^ - -. . : �
�':Y .. 'K . ' .� ; .
� �� r - '
� ��i � ,
`. � �1,'- . . , �` '
. � � ,�. . . . , i. '� �.
. . . . ._ .-'� ; ..
y♦.��� ,ti = .,
`x.� f.
`� �r� '��,�,,.�. ,� �� E . � _�.�.y � _ ..
e k .. 'i, ,�� --� " 9it - ,,,;.. 's �.
�' Y� � ��• .f .�c' ��� . , .. � _.. . •
3� .:. 3�,'�
� t �
. * �
�',
`w;-
.: w.
. . ... . ...lY.�
�j' -�` s„�t ?. �.. �;'rt �iF
�f �-• 4
I�
�� .
. ��
� � + �
i
�� � � 3i1� .' �
ek'�:"' , .,�M�'.. ",�' .,�. -�� �3`�' r
� x t ,�
!v!' .' :�rn,,: .. � -'—
^'�:=:.'=':r. � � �'� —
City of Burlingame
Mitigated Negative Declaration; Design Review for a New,
Two-Story Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Item #
Consent Calendar
Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 03/10/03
Request: Mitigated negative declaration and design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010)
Applicant: Otto Miller
Property Owner: Eugene and Maureen Supanich
Designer: James Chu/Chu Design & Engineering, Inc.
General Plan: Low Density Residential
CEQA Status: Refer to ND-528 P
APN: 026-166-170
Lot Area: 12,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The site at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three separate lots. The two lots to the left (Lots 14 and
15) are merged by the construction of a large house over the lot lines. The third lot (Lot 13), contains a
swimming pool for the adjacent dwelling. Sanchez Creek also runs along the right hand side of Lot 13. Because
no dwelling or use extends across the lot line between the middle and the third lot (Lot 14 and 13), the third lot
stands as an independent, build-able lot.
The applicant is now proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 and to build a new two-story single
family dwelling with detached garage on the emerged lot. The proposed house and detached garage will have a
total floor area of 4,783 SF (0.40 FAR) where 5,340 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house
that merges the adjacent 6,000 SF lots will remain.
The proposed house is adjacent to Sanchez Creek on a new 12,000 SF lot, of which 60% is above the top of the
creek bed. LTI Engineering has determined that the proposed house is outside the 100-year flood plain.
(Engineering report date stamped August 19, 2002 attached). The existing creek bed will not be changed or
altered by the development of the house.
The proj ect includes a new detached two-car garage (427 SF) that provides two code compliant covered parking
spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant
is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new two-story single-family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010).
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
APPLICATON STUDY 9/23/02
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): 22'-6" 18'-6" * 22'-6" (block average)
(2nd itr): 25'-6" 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
Side (left): no change 11'-6" 7'-0"
(right): no change 45'-6" 7'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): 31'-6" 32'-6" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 31'-6" 32'-6" 20'-0"
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
APPLICATON STUDY 9/23/02
Lot Coverage: 2,814 SF 2,798 SF 4,800 SF
(23%) (23%) (40%)
FAR: 4,783 SF 4,883 SF 5,340 SF
0.40 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.45 FAR
# of bedrooms: no change 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(Zo� X Zo�� (20� X Zo�� (Zo� X Zo�>
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 28'-5" 28'-5" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: complies complies C.S.25.28.075
* Front setback variance was eliminated.
Staff Comments: See attached.
History: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 9, 2002, the Commission
reviewed an application for a new two-story single-family dwelling and detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo
Avenue. The Commission continued the item, requesting additional information and revisions to the plans. The
project returned to design review study on September 23, 2002, with the applicant submitting revised plans and a
letter from the applicant date stamped September 16, 2002 to address the Commission's concerns with the
project. The revisions also resulted in a front setback variance (see bullet points below for Commission
comments and revisions to the project during the two study hearings).
• Commission's comment
➢ Applicant's response
� Commission concerned with adjacent house since the proposed design is more like this design the houses in
the rest of the neighborhood; need more information regarding the applicant's intention for the adjacent
property; is applicant under contract to purchase properties;
➢ The applicant has stated in attached letter that the adj acent house is currently being leased to a family that has
been living there for the last three months, that no immediate plans have been prepared for the existing house
and property, and the applicant is under contact for a lease/option agreement with the property owner which
does not have to be exercised unti12003;
• Concerned with creek and soils; has a soils report been prepared;
➢ A soils report has been prepared by J. Yang and Associates based on the current plans with the general
conclusion that the site is suitable from a geotechnical aspect for the proposed single family dwelling;
2
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
• Concerned with mass and bulk of house;
➢ The proposed house has been reduced in size from 5,139 SF (.43 FAR) to 4,883 SF (.41 FAR) where 5,340
SF (.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed; the reduction in FAR was achieved by reducing the length of the first
floor by 1'-0" and the width by 2'-6"; the second floor length was reduced by 3'-0"; and
➢ The overall height of the structure has been reduced from 29'-6" to 28'-5";
• Is it possible to lower plate heights;
➢ The second floor plate height has been reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-1 ";
• Opportunity to add planters along driveway side;
➢ The left side setback has been increased from 10'-0" to 11'-6" to allow for planters along the driveway;
• Front porch should be deeper;
➢ The front porch has been increased in size, now extends into the front setback and requires a front setback
vanance;
• Beautiful setting, need stronger connection to creek;
• Possible bigger windows;
• Great opportunity to add French doors at dining room oriented to creek;
➢ French doors have been added to the family room at the rear of the house that open to the backyard;
➢ A covered porch has been added on the right side with French doors opening from the dining room; and
• House feels big, should have more backyard;
➢ The rear setback has been increased from 25'-0" to 32'-6", thus increasing the size of the backyard;
At the continued study hearing on September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended that an initial
study for the project and voted to refer the project to the a design review consultant, based on the comments list
below.
• this creek lot is unique and the proposed house does not take advantage of the natural setting;
• a split level floor plan, a wrap-around porch, and other design options are available to connect the house
to the creek setting and make the house less massive and to reduce the impact of the house on the street;
• there is an upstairs deck proposed on the house that looks out on a telephone pole, where it could be re-
located to the other side to have a view of the Redwoods;
• concern over the front setback variance, this a large lot and house is starting from scratch, where is the
justification for a variance;
• the porch should be retained, but look into decreasing the length of the house to eliminate the front
setback variance and also keep a sizeable backyard;
• feel the site supports a house of the proposed size, but as currently designed the house is too massive and
bulky;
• concern with the impact of the construction on the Redwood trees and the creek;
• designer should look into shifting the center of gravity of the house to the South and reducing the left
elevation so that there will be less visual impact if the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo were demolished at
some point in the future; and
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
• it is important to have early review of impacts to Redwoods and the creek, would like to see an initial
study for environmental review prepared by staff with the appropriate studies submitted by the applicant.
Design Reviewer's Comments: The applicant met with the design review consultant on two separate occasions
and made revisions to the design for the proposed dwelling three times. The design review consultant
recommends approval of the proj ect (see January 13, 2003 Comments), noting in particular that the applicant has
addressed concerns about mass and bulk and compatibility with the creek setting with the following revisions:
➢ a change in materials from stucco to shingle with a wood base;
➢ the chimney was eliminated from the right side elevation;
➢ the main house roof sheds down on the front, right side of the dwelling to the first floor level; and
➢ Setting the house further back on the lot eliminated the front setback variance and at the same time, the
porch depth was increased from 5'-0" to 10'-0" and the length was increased from 8'-0" to 22'-0".
Finally, the designer notes that the applicant could further reduce the apparent mass of the dwelling by extending
the bellyband used on the left and rear elevations to the front and right sides of the dwelling.
February 10, 2003 Design Review Study Meeting: At their study meeting on February 10, 2003, the Planning
Commission complemented the designer on the revised plans, noting that the shingle-style house was a much
better fit with the creek setting than the previous proposal and that the floor area had been reduced by 100 SF.
The Commission moved to place this item on the consent calendar. Direction was given to the applicant to revise
the plans to include the details suggested by the Design Review Consultant, to choose trees on site that were more
compatible with the existing trees near the creek, and to consider adding a window to the blank wall at the left
elevation of the garage.
The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped February 13, 2003, showing that a bellyband to match the left
and rear elevations has been extended to all elevation of the dwelling and the landscape plan shows the following
changes:
• two proposed street trees were changed from Crepe myrtles to Western Redbuds;
• one proposed tree in the left front yard was changed from a White Birch to a Pacific Dogwood; and
• one proposed tree in the right front yard was changed from a Japanese Maple to a Coast Live Oak.
A window was not added at the left elevation of the garage because of privacy concerns for the neighboring
property and because and accessory structure with windows within 10 feet of a property line triggers a conditional
use permit.
Mitigated Negative Declaration: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project,
was posted on February 4, 2003, in City Hall and with the County. The initial study for the proposed project
showed that there would be potentially significant impacts, unless mitigation was proposed, to the trees, soils,
and utilities and service systems on the site. A summary of the Declaration follows and the full document is
included as part of the staff report:
Redwood Trees
The 7 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There is no
construction proposed below the top of bank, but there may be a potentially significant impact to the health
of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. Protective fencing should be established along the west
(highest level) of the existing rock retaining wall separating the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable
�
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD anc� Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
area on the site. No construction or construction materials shall be allowed to extend beyond the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall that represents the top of bank. The applicant must schedule an
inspection with the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree protection
measures are correctly installed and all requirements are being met. These protection measures will reduce
the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
Soils
The applicant submitted a soils report for the site to study the removal of the existing swimming pool and the
stability of soils for new construction. The footprint of the proposed house, at the southeast corner, will be 6
inches from the existing retaining wall at the top of the creek bank. The soils report recommends that for
maximum stability of the new dwelling, the existing swimming pool shell should be removed and the area be
backfilled to a relative compaction of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type for the new dwelling should be
drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade beams. Adherence to the recommendations listed in the soil report
will reduce the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
Utilities and Service S, st�
The existing house merging Lots 14 and 15 connects to a 4-inch water main on Carmelita Avenue. All of the
remaining properties along the north side of the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue connect to a 1-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue and terminates east of the creek. There is also existing 2-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue to the south of the 1-inch line that serves the houses on the south side of
Cabrillo Avenue. There are no water mains running along Cabrillo Avenue in front of Lots 13, 14 or 15.
Public Works records indicate that the existing 1-inch and 2-inch water lines closest to the subject property
cannot accommodate the water demands of an additional single-family dwelling. Therefore, prior to being
issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit to the City Engineer a
plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on
Lot 13. The service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the existing residences that are
services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the
Planning Commission's February 10, 2003, design review study meeting and the mitigation measures set
forth in the mitigated negative declaration (ND 528-P), that fencing will be placed at the top of the creek to
protect the Redwood trees on site, that the existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and the area be
backfilled to a relative compaction of 95% minimum, and that prior to being issued a building permit, the
property owner shall be required to prepare and submit to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design,
construction and installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling, it is found that the project will
have no significant (negative) effect on the environment. Mitigation measures detailed in the mitigated
negative declaration will be made mandatory by including the measures as conditions of approval for the
proj ect.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
5
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD anc� Detached Garage
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Findings for Design Review: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes ofthe Planning Commission's
February 10, 2003, design review study meeting, that the proposed shingle-style dwelling is consistent with the
neighborhood and appropriate for the creek lot, that the mass of the dwelling has been reduced by the addition of
a bellyband between the first and second floors, and that the proposed trees on the landscape plan are the proj ect
is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and including the conditions representing
mitigation for the mitigated negative declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff report and/or
that the commissioners wish to add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated.
The resolution with conditions shall be recorded with the property to insure implementation of the required
mitigations. Please note that the conditions below that are in italics reflect the mitigation measures taken from
the mitigated negative declaration. If approved, these conditions will also be placed on the building permit:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
February 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.6 and sheet L.1, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury;
4. that prior to scheduling the final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect the site and
project to verify that the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) have been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12 and October 7, 2002 memos, the Fire Marshal's
and the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memos, City Arborist's August 12, 2002 memo,
and the Recycling Specialist's August 6, 2002 memo shall be met;
�
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners
and set the building envelope;
9. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height;
13. that the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site Investigation by
J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Department September 16, 2002; including
that the existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and that the aYea bac�lled to a relative
compaction of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type shall be drilled cast-in place concrete
piers and grade beams;
14. that at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or
materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock retaining
wall, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, oY equipment;
I5. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to
meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or
storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the pYoperty lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal
areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and
structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and
designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas;
17. that off-site runoffshall be diverted aYound the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas;
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD anc� Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
18. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm
drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded
areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously
until permanent erosion controls have been established;
19. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be
required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of
a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the
BAAQMD peYmit shall be met;
20. that at no time duYing demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction
work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock
retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
21. thatprotective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the existing rock
retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable area on the site;
22. that the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition peYmit is
issued to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and requirements are being
met;
23. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be
placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required; it shall be
the responsibility of the property owner to obtain any required permits;
24. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, which limits to hours of construction to 7.•00 a.m. to 7: 00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9: 00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6.•00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation oY hauling on the site on
weekends or holidays;
25. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA;
26. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction " form to the building
department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 peYcent of
constYuction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall
be responsible for the implementation of this plan;
27. that prior to being issued a building permit, the property owneY shall be Yequired to prepare and
submit to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and installation of
appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be designed so that it will not
negatively impact the existing residences that are services by the water mains on the 1000 block of
Cabrillo Avenue;
Design Review for a New Two-Sto�y SFD and Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
28. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
29. that the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission;
30. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or
construction takes place on the site;
31. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until
they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City;
32. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as
amended by the City of Burlingame; and
33. the property owner shall be responsible for submitting a certified arborist's report for approval by the
City Arborist before a final Building permit is issued to address a recommended maintenance
program for the seven protected-size Redwood trees on site for at least three years following
construction; failure to do this resulting in the loss of the protected trees shall require that the property
owner replace the lost trees with trees of a size and species selected by the City Arborist.
Erika Lewit
Planner
Otto Miller, applicant
Eugene and Maureen Supanich, property owners
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
February 10, 2003
C. Auran mad a motion place 1544 B al Avenue and the parce ap on the consent action cal dar at a
time when e requested revisions ad been made and plan ecked. The motion was sec ded by C.
Vistica.
V� e-Chair Bojues called r a voice vote on the m on to place the parcel map and 44 Bernal Avenu n
e consent calendar en plans had been rev' ed as directed. The motion p ed 5-0-2 on a voi vote
(Cmsrs. Keighra nd Brownrigg abstain' ). The Planning Commissi s action is adviso and not
appealable. T's item concluded at 9: p.m.
Chair �ghran and C. Brownri��eturned to the dais.
9. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH,
PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHLT DESIGN & ENGR.,INC., DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Lewit briefly presented the proj ect description and noted a desk item showing that the existing house
on Lots 14 and 15 at 1036 Cabrillo had been put on the market. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Otto Miller, applicant, and James Chu, designer, were present
to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant what the intent was behind the second story balcony at
the left side and if a split-level floor plan leading to the creek was explored. The applicant responded that
the balcony was included to add interest to the design at that elevation and a split-level floor plan was
determined to be impractical because the existing retaining wall prevents direct access to the creek from the
right elevation of the proposed house.
Vitus Viskanta, 1704 Sanchez Avenue and Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke regarding the project.
They appreciated Mr. Miller offering to show them plans for the house in advance, feel their concems about
the mass and style of the proposed house have been addressed by the applicant, still have concern for the
existing residence at 1036 Cabrillo, hope it will be bought and renovated; if it is not renovated, hope the
owners will look to the reduction in square footage for proposed house as an example when designing the
new dwellings. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the next available consent action calendar. The motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
Commissioners noted for plan revisions: applicant should consider revising plans to follow the advice of the
consultant to add a bellyband at the left and rear elevations to reduce apparent mass, left side of garage is
blank and could use a window, also landscape plan might be reconsidered because the stipulated tree species,
birch and swamp myrtle, don't complement the existing creek trees.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent action calendar when
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
10
Ciiy of�i'riingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes /,- September�, �002
i
/ �— .
moti passed 6-0-1 (Chair ighran absta�g on a voice vote. There is no appeal for this action. The
ite concluded at 10:20 p.m.
9. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT;
EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR.,
INC. DESIGNER�(65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE
ZT O'Rourke briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the applicant, Otto Miller,
should be listed as property owner or if Eugene Supanich was still the property owner. ZT O'Rourke noted
that Eugene Supanich is still the property owner, but he has given Otto Miller permission to submit plans for
development of the creekside lot.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, was present to answer questions
regarding the project. He stated that the Commission's job here tonight was to address the completeness of
the application, chief concern is the creek, applicant has worked with LTI Engineering and the Public Works
Department to insure that the development meets city creek requirements. Noted that James Chu, designer,
was available to answer questions about the design of the house and Michael Callan was also available to
answer any landscape questions. James Chu, designer, noted that the house was designed to preserve the
creek, the house to be built on a piers foundation to maintain the existing stone wall, and an erosion control
plan will be provided. Commissioner asked how does the proposed house interact in a design sense with the
existing house. Designer stated that they had been doing Tudor and French designs, thought they would try
something different, providing curved and rounded elements, trying to make the design compatible with the
creek setting, the existing house has a tile roof.
Commissioner asked if there is an opportunity to provide a planter along the driveway side by the powder
room/library to help break up the wall. Designer noted that it is possible to add a planter along that side.
Commissioner noted that the front porch should be deeper, would encroach into front setback, but would be
okay with that; might be nice to match the existing porch of the adjacent house, does applicant have any
desire to retain the existing house. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure what the applicant was proposing
with the adjacent lots, he is in the process of leasing the existing house to someone.
Public comment continued: Commissioner noted that if the house stays or goes, Commission needs more
information; how do houses correspond, concerned with mass and bulk of house; is it possible to lower plate
heights; would be nice to open the house to the creek, need stronger connection to creek, possible bigger
windows, French doors, there are a couple details that can be added upon; beautiful setting, great
opportunity to add French doors at dining room; connected to ground, size of house is huge, don't see
consistency with adjacent house, there is opportunity for the site. Commissioner asked for verification on
whether all 3 lots were under the ownership of Eugene Supanich; is applicant under contract to purchase
properties, when will it close. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure of the contractual obligation of the
applicant, but would make sure that that information is provided to the Planning Commission at the next
meeting.
Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo; Sally Downing, 1801 Bernal; Dan Griffins, 1030 Cabrillo; Vitus Vishon, 1704
Sanchez; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; spoke regarding the project. Was concerned with how the house will fit
in the neighborhood, in his mind the current house is a landmark property, he lives in a large 3,500 SF house
on the corner, has seen others build retangular houses in the past on similar developments, wants to know
what is going to happen to existing house, concerned with creek and Redwood trees, would like to see a plan
10
Ci'ry of �lingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes
September 9, 2002
to protect trees and creek, concerned that garage at rear of house down long driveway will not be used,
would like to see more character added to the house; noted that there is a long, narrow driveway proposed,
massive house on short street, should reduce massiveness, what to do with other 21ots, should look at whole
block, should hold off till other proposal, would like to know what the other plans for the 2 lots will be;
noted that there seems to be a lot of information missing, proposed house is at the maximum FAR and only
half of the lot is buildable; should protect landscape elements; existing house should have historical
designation; the proposed house eliminates the backyard of existing house, existing house is probably the
most significant house in whole Easton Addition, proposal should be studied more; would support more
study on this project, historically significant house. There were no other comments from the floar and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this project is as significant as 1537 Drake Avenue. Commissioner asked for
clarification on lot emergence. CP Monroe noted that currently there is 1 lot, with the removal of the
swimming pool a 12,000 SF lot will emerge which meets the lot size requirements; the existing house will
sit on two 6,000 SF lots. CA Anderson noted that the applicant would require a conditional use permit to re-
emerge the two lots upon demolition of the existing house. With respect to design, house feels big, should
have more backyard; house too big, what will happen on adjacent lots.
Chair Keighran made a motion to continue this project when more information has been submitted regarding
the future of the existing lots. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on motion: compatibility how does the proposed house fit in the neighborhood, can house be
reduced; Commissioner asked why environmental scoping wasn't required, impacts as significant as 1537
Drake Avenue. CP Monroe noted that staff could prepare a negative declaration if Commission wanted,
would need to address issues, also tree protection requirements are included in conditions. CA Anderson
noted that Commission could focus on block patterns, what's block going to look like at maximum build-
out. Commissioner noted that they need to know what the current plans are for the adjacent lot, affects
overall planning, are soils studied. Donald Chang, Senior Engineer, noted that Public Works Department
requires a soils report. Commission concerned about affects development will have on creek, is the soil
stable enough to develop on with piers, what will the on-site affects be; should look at other double lots,
what potential and how have they been developed —(1000 Bernal, 1008 Bernal); what types and sizes of
houses on these lots; Commissioner noted that if the applicant stipulates that the house will stay, then would
consider a larger house on adjacent lot; must assume everyone acts in good faith.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to continue this item when more information has been
prepared and the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
10. 1751 ESCALANTE W�Y — ZONED R-1— APPLJ,�ATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW �ND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION P RMIT FOR A SECOND TORY ADDITION (CHEN YU A, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT� MI SIEN PROPERTY O ER 30 NOTICED PROJECT P ANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT O'Ro e briefly presented the roject description. Commissione sked staff about the measurement of
parking space to
parking space dimension is
sidewalk. There were no �
h inner edge of the sidewalk.
owed included in the area betw
questions of staff.
onroe stated that existing uncovered
the property line and the inner edge of the
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
proposed house does not fit into the neighborhood, the style only matches the existing corner house at 1032
Cabrillo, which may not be there in 5 years; the rest of the neighborhood is Craftsman in character with
smaller-scale homes, the proposed house would stick out like a sore thumb; the proposed house size does not
fit the creek lot, it is crammed off to one side of the lot and not integrated with the creek; the lot is 12,000 SF
but because of the creek only about 6000 SF is build-able; and the foundation of house will be close to
Redwoods, which have shallow roots, and an arborist report should be required to ensure that the health of
the trees is maintained during and after construction. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion identified the following concerns about the project:
• this creek lot is unique and the proposed house does not take advantage of the natural setting;
� a split level floor plan, a wrap-around porch, and other design options are available to connect the
house to the creek setting and make the house less massive and to reduce the impact of the house on
the street;
• there is an upstairs deck proposed on the house that looks out on a telephone pole, where it could be
re-located to the other side to have a view of the Redwoods;
• concern over the front setback variance, this a large lot and house is starting from scratch, where is
the justification for a variance;
• the porch should be retained, but look into decreasing the length of the house to eliminate the front
setback variance and also keep a sizeable backyard;
• feel the site supports a house of the proposed size, but as currently designed the house is too massive
and bulky;
• concern with the impact of the construction on the Redwood trees and the creek;
• designer should look into shifting the center of gravity of the house to the South and reducing the left
elevation so that there will be less visual impact if the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo were
demolished at some point in the future; and
• it is important to have early review of impacts to Redwoods and the creek, would like to see an
initial study for environmental review prepared by staff with the appropriate studies submitted by the
applicant.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this proj ect to a design reviewer with the comments made and directed
staff to prepare an initial study for the proj ect, with particular attention given to the protection of the existing
Redwood trees and impact of construction on the creek. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: strong interest in having the owner, tenant, and Mr. Miller attend the next hearing and
speak to the Commission and the community about the project; and what is the time line for both design
review and environmental review?
CP Monroe note that the design review and initial study can proceed in parallel.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to prepare and initial study and to refer this item to a design
review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
6. 121 C CENT AVENUE — ZON R-1— APPLI ATION FOR DESIGN VIEW AND SP L
PE FOR DECLINING H HT ENVELOP OR A LOWER FL R, FIRST AND COND
ST Y ADDITION (JOE LISA L T, APPLICANT PROPERTY O�RS; ANA
7
Ciry of Burlii2game Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
• do not believe the neig�orhood can support three hom�s'�iuilt to the maximum allowable FAR;
• review by design c sultant should assume the dev pment of a third house on Lot 11;
• mass and bulk e just as important as the max' um FAR; and
• the issues f design review consultant are to tweak the architectural elements, but reduce the
size of e houses and to provide varie in design.
C. Vistic ade a motion to send this ject to a design reviewer with the co ents made. This motion
was s onded by C. Keele.
Vice-Chair Bojues called fo voice vote on the motion to refer t project to a design review consultant.
The motion passed on a vi ce vote 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran and Ost ing dissenting, Chair Keighran abstaining).
The Planning Comm� sion's action is advisory and not a ealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m.
Chair Keighran returned to the dais and called for a five-minute recess at 9:27 p.m.
Recess ended at 9:37 p.m.
5. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGEAND FRONT SEBTACK
VARIANCE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT; EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY
OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., 1NC., DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2002)
Planner Lewit briefly presented the proj ect description. Commission asked of staff: has the City Engineer
reviewed the soils report; what is the significance of the 7 foot mark above the creek; is the existing retaining
wall sufficient for bank protection? Staff noted that these items would be addressed by staff or by the
applicant in the next staff report.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, representing the owner, and
James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the variance for the front
setback for the porch was mentioned as a possible solution by soine members of the Commission at the last
hearing to provide interest at the front elevation, the porch can be removed, but a variance may be justified
on the lot by the presence of the creek; designer has made several design changes in an effort to connect the
house better with the creek setting; and the method of construction will include a pier and grade foundation,
which is preferred for minimal impact to the creek. Commission noted that Sheet A.4 shows cross-hatclung
that is not labeled and Sheet A.3 does not have cross-hatching for the deck located off the breakfast nook.
Mr. Chu replied that these items would be revised in the next set of plans. Commission asked for further
clarification regarding the ownership of the property. Mr. Hudak responded that presently the properties at
1032 and 1036 Cabrillo Avenue are owned by Eugene and Maureen Supanich, that Otto Miller has a lease on
both properties with an option to buy, and that this option expires in 2003. Mr. Miller is currently subleasing
the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo Avenue to a tenant that has expressed an interest in buying the property.
It is not know whether the tenant, if he purchased the property, would keep the existing house.
Sandra Yee, 1800 Carmelita Avenue; Vitus Viskanta, 1704 Sanchez Avenue; Dan Griffen, 1015 Cabrillo
Avenue; Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo, Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, and Garret Smith, neighbor, spoke
with concerns about the project: do not believe that the owner has any intention of keeping the existing
house, the result will be a multi-unit proj ect, like the development at 1537 Drake Avenue, but staggered over
time; have concerns with traffic on the street and the protection of the Redwood trees along the creek; the
�
01/14/2003 16:56 656-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 02
Dd�igto� �t�view COm�cnb
City of B�rlingame
Date_ January 13, 2003
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Budingame, CA 94010
Re: 1036 Csbrillo Ave.
Desigt►er. Chu Design and Eagineering bnc.
Platwer� F.�c�ika Le�wit
I have visited the site and sutrounding area. I reviewed the original submission to the
Plaaning Commission, and the PLnning Commission's conunents as presented in the
meeting minutes_ The Oamer, Designer, and I met twic� �nd there were tluee munds of
revisions prior to the final design.
DESIGN CrUIDELINES:
1. Campatibility of the ArchitecturAl Style v►ith tl�t of t4e E�atUo.g
Neighbochood.
■ The neighborhood contains a vari�ty of houses nnd styles. The slyle of this
home is not ivacompatible w�ith the �naghborhood. The desig�aier has chsnged
the house £rom hav�ng a Mediterianean/Italian appearance to a more
Cra.ftsmaNSb�imgle look. The new softer, mone natural materials are well
suited to the setting and the swrounding neighborhood.
Z. Re,�pect for Parl�i�g and Gara�e Pattex�s io t�e 1�iei�hborLood
• Tho parking for this house is in a two car detached garage at the back of the
prapa�ty. This design reduces impacts om the street amd is co�onpat�ibie with
patterns iva the �aeighborhood.
3. Architiectural Styie, Ma� & Bulk of t6e Stracture:
Of greatest ooncern with this project was the me9s, 4nd bulk, of the proposal. ?he
jist of the Planning Commission comments were that:
• Tbie house does�a't take adva�tage of the setting
• The house should appeaz less massive a�ud be cb�eua�ed to �-ecfiuee im�pact on
the street.
• Thare was conoan about the upstairs deck on the front ofthe house.
el/14/2993 16:56 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 03
• The � sdbaalc vsriancc was nvt justifiod. Kocp a porch, but diminatc
va[iance. '
• Tho sizo of thc house is ok. but appeais too massi►ve and bulky.
• Shi$ the "�tor of g�avity" of the house to the South
• Study of iunpact vn ReciwoQds (uot Part o�this revi►ew)-
�
The dosig�r h�s made modific.aa�'ians to the ori�ginal proposal in an effort ta
xespo�d to tb,ese Plam►ia�g Comueission cancerns.
� �.� , � : ; , � �
• �7�IIC1�:
ps previously noteci, the stuugle aiding and stonc basc are better suited to
the site ti�an the previoualy pmoposed stucco. The sbone base will eciao the
oacistic�g stone wails b�low a�nd help to ease the atructure out of the gt+ound_
Tt�e use o£wood siding will help tLe hayse.�o betkea' blend in with the
rodwoods. The housc has boen shortene�, and t�ie act�bsck varia�ace
eliminated.
� Fmnt and I.eR Elevations:
1. 'The roofed second 800r porcb� tws been removed, �d the main house
roof now sheds all the way down �o incorporate a grownd level,
len�thened front porch. This is the most viBible comer ofthe house,
and this revision offoctivcly moves tho "cwter o;f gravity" to the
South, while signi�tcantly reducing the bulk of the house on bath the
fmnt and kft sides.
2_ The chimney on the left side wes tnoved to thc b�ck and roplaood with
windows, reducing the appac+ent mass facing the proputy to the North
3. The lengtb��nal front po�ch adds a greater sense of "�iriness" to the
�rrnt�t, a�d is less massi.ve iuo� its desi�g�-
4. The long sloping roof is ariiculated with a dom�er' th�t oombiaes witb
� the po�rch roofio balance the 2 story gabled section.
S. The designex may wat�t to oonsider continuiug !�.6e second floor line
bellyband, used elsewhere on the house, on the fro� aad right sides
(living room) to fiuthex break down the masa tlunugh acticulstioa
• Right Sida Elevatioa:
1. �'he vnay area a�th� right �levation tb�at b�a� aay �a pat�trtial of
�P��B a view fmm the strcet i� the frvtrtt seetion e�t the living room.
The chimn�y that was the�+e p�reviously has bee�n romoved, and
replaced with much larger wu►dows, which will reduce the a+ctual and
the percxaved mass, and offier the living room better views to the
c�eciwoods. The sug�ested bellyband mentioned abov� would a�so rw�
acrosa this wall. The rest of the right side o£tbe house is virtually
buried behimd the redwoods. � don't betieve that one can �ctually get
�
01/14/2003 16:56 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 04
to a vantage point from w�uich xnoce than sm�all sect�o�as of tho wall can
be seea_
Rear Elevaxion:
1. The clumney that was on the left side of the house now resides on the
rcar.
2. Tha n,ar dcvation is not of great concem, since it has no rosl impact
beyond this property, at�d we had no comrnmts on it.
4. Ltetface of the Propoedi Structnre witL the Adjaoent Stractut�es to E�cd
SudE:
• The pmposed strucxure is separated from thc b�aise on the left by a driveway
md a wide setback (at the neighboring house). The addition of a ne�w house
where one cucreatly does not exist will certainly have sigmi�f can�t vi�ew iumpacts
tn the hauae on the �eft. However, in tams of typical Burlingame situations,
the re�lti�g relationship betweffi the two houses is not uauwa�, and will
�+ovide slighdy moc+e than avete,go space. Thete are screening vines proposed
to go along the drivcway.
� The houge to the right is on the ather side of the creek and r�dwood grove.
While there may be glimpses through to the new house &om the propaty aa�
tbe �gb�t, the screep�tg is about as good as it gets.
• Impacts to the rear w�ere di�"icult to assess, but tikely to be nouiniuraal.
S. I.a�odscapitt� wnd its proportion to tL� 1Vi�tss �uad Bulk of Structnral
Gompattnta:
A landscapic�g plan was submitted with the project. The plan looks pleasant
and complete, however, it laas not bcen updatcd to neflect revisions made to
the plane during the design review process. Updated plaz�s should be
submitted.
Our gt�eatest ooncem is for the protection of the e�isting redwoods to easure
their continued sutv�ival.
���.�� .� �
• The revised propos�l is a significant improvement over the orig�ii�o�;al one in t�ma
of appeazance, and mazerials bea�tg pxuposed for use in this setting.
• The a�ctual and apparent mass and be�lk of the house bas been ;roduoed with
revisions as oatlined above.
•� mY oP�4 �� ��P�vements biave t�en made tv tbic design. It feels
cleaner, su�aller, and better suited for the site_ I suppott the rr:vised propo9al.
Ra�ady Cs�ange, A,Z,A,
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
October 7, 2002
To: Ply�r�ii epartment
From: Vic ; ng ni eering Division
Subject: Pl 'n Review for 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Staff has reviewed the soils report dated September 2, 2002 and comments to the soils report are
as follows;
Project plans shall incorporate the recommendations as noted in the soils report, including but
not limited to, removing the existing swimming pool shell and backfill to a relative compaction
of 95%.
U: \V ICTOR\Projects\Private\1036Cabril lo.wpd
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 30, 2002
TO: ✓ City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage
at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-166-170.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
The following requirements apply to the project
���; ..�,,� ,sr��Y
Project Name ��+�� �u�y k�w�uti�T
Project Address: ��� c�+`����"�
.���ti�
1 �_ A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 _�� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3
�
�
The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
� A sanitary sewer lateral #se� is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
,.!
f -
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 �_ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 � No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 � The project shall comply with the City's NPDE permit requireme t to
prevent storm water pollution. J��tt-�-�wr /I�,� ,� �,�.� � �
�A�bz,Q `Z.-� 2��.,�kt+�c� ���Q � o-c;�� u►-af � � Cc��r-��
21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- ��-� �
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is ��,Q�.��
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject��� �
to City Engineer's approval.
e�-�=���
22 ,�_ The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans ��,�,,
showing the driveway profile with elevations �� __ _`��,
�
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
.�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 �— The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 30, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Off'icial
,�Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
�Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff --
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage
at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-166-170.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 30, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
�Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage
at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-166-170.
ROUTING FORM
DA'I'E: July 30, 2002
TO: _Ciry Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
�Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_Ciry Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage
at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-166-170.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, Au�ust 5, 2002 __
z c��� ` 0�� �.,�.� U�
�
�� � � �
�� 0� � �
�
� �.�w�,
` �� � � ���� �
�
� G�'�' ^ � /v.�.� s�Q • �,� ��w`'u�,e "
l � �
� - �-v�-� �e- �l�"
� ��ti��
�-v�- � �
�,�,`�/l 6-� r�-�-��9- .
� /
Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ��(, �Z _
ROUTING FORM
DATE: July 30, 2002
TO: _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
, � Recycling Specialist
✓Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Plannind ; •Ta �
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage
at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-166-170.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� CITY O�
BURLJNOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�..m o.
�e•
Type of application: Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: ���../C.v C,��) L.�. �V I✓
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: <� ��/ Name: C� I 1 � � � W�I"
Address: .���J'��l f—� • Address� � I ���J_�--"� a�����"�
i�
City/State/Zip: ity/State/Zip�� �`�D ����
Phone (w): '?�' I-�U� Phone (w): �— � I I2
(h):
cfl: ��i'S — ��1
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER �
Name:
Address: L✓I -� I � � `�
City/State/Zip: �ITI L ��'� I "�
Phone (w):
(h):
(h):
c�:�l'� • 8`�3�
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
RECEiVED
J U L 2 9 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and he best of my ledge and belief.
Applicant's si re: Date � 2� ��
I know about the pro application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: �jr(�W Date: �� 4�
PCAPP.FRM
Mil/er Deve/opment
P.O. Box 121
Burlingame, CA 94011
(650) 340-8112 (415) 809-3863 Pager
(650) 340-8435 Fax (650) 343-9632 Voice Mail
September 16, 2002
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: application for 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is concerning the property at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, adjacent to the property at
1032 Cabrillo which I have submitted for Design Review.
I hold this property under a lease/option to purchase which does not have to be exercised
unti12003. At this time, I have leased the property to a family which has been living there for
three months. At this time I have no immediate plans for the property, nor am I sure whether
I will proceed with the purchase.
Sincerely,
(� /l���v
tto � Miller
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2002 �
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPi.
08/23/2�02 08:31 6503408435 MILLERDEVELOPMENT PAGE 01
FP.CM ; SUPRN 1 CN FAX N0. : E50.y4?132�+ Auy. �3 �0e2 @9: 32AM P7.
68%2?/7e32 08: Zy ��P;a��.�3� Mtl1ERGEvELC1F+�E�JT Pq� Qi
Augu�t 23, 2001
To the Ciry ox Burtt�Nne
Tlo�se be �sd thrc OttO lbtillar hu our persui�t itc lubm;t plat►� 1u th� rev�evr bo�rd #'o�
1 �!6 Ip Av�cu�c.
/J �
� ; � ��
� Su �
Owutt, 1036 ebtiU� Ave:tue
�� - c'1%��-�
/��• � � � .
� � �f".�ir/ S� ��in�
RECEIVED
AUG 2 3 2002
CITY OF BURLINGA�E
PLANNING DEPT.
HP Fax Series 900
Plain Paper F�/Copier
Last Fu�
Date Time
Aug 22 2:Olpm
Twe Identification
Sent 14083999975
Fax History Report for
Chu Design Engr.
(650) 345-9287
Aug 22 2002 2:02pm
Duration Pa�es Result
0:00 0 No answer
� C� �'� z� t�Z
CLK-Musso, Ann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ann,
Would you make
as well as the
cathy baylock [cathyb11@earthlink:net]
Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:11 AM
Ann Musso
Fwd: Planning Commission hearing 9/9
sure this is forwarded on to each of the Council members
Planning commission. Thanks. cathyb
Begin forwarded message:
���coun�i�
C7 C�jt3fManager
L'�City Attomey
❑ Dir ance
ity P(anner '
❑ Dir. Public Works
❑ Human Resources
❑ Police Chief
> From: "Deborah Magid" <dmagid�us.ibm.com> ❑ FireChief
> Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 06:33:44 PM US/Pacific ❑ Parks&Rec
> To : cathy�baylock. com, rosalleomahony@earthlink. com , o t,ibrarian
> Subject: Re: Planning Commission hearing 9/9
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a resident of Burlingame at 1104 Cortez. I was out of towa�-�t the:
> time of the planning commissiori ��aring on the 9th, so wonder if you
> have
> any views on the following, and hope that you can forward this note to
> the
> commission, and perhaps the rest of the council, since I was unable to
> speak at the meeting. I couldn't find the commissioners' email
> addresses
> online.
>
> There has been an application for design review for a new two story
> single-family dwelling and detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo Ave. The
> current property is -- I'm guessing -- a very large 1920's classic
> mediterranean style stucco house with tile roof on a double lot. I
> have
> been told a bit about it's history by the neighbors, and understand it's
> pretty neat, including an indoor pool.
>
> Many of us in this neighborhood are quite upset to see one house after
> another torn down. You know this. You can walk through the
> neighborhood
> and see all the new construction. My neighbors and I attended the
> design
> review meeting which approved destruction of the circa 1917
> spanish-style
> house next door to mine, at 1108. They say it is in poor
> condition. I
> think the small size is more to the point. The new house is designed
> for
> maximum lot coverage and maximum size, and has no real style. (It is
> basically a fake colonial box.) Our new neighbors across the street,
> who
> moved here from San Francisco attended that meeting, and tell me they
> will
> never attend another. They felt that the decisions were already made,
> and the input from the community completely pro forma. At the end of
> the
> meeting, the head of our historical society introduced himself. All
> he
> can do is photograph these homes before they are destroyed. If this
> trend
> continues, we'l1 have a historical record, but nothing else to show for
> what had been a beautiful town.
>
DISTRIBUTIOI
❑ No Response R�
❑ On Next Agend
PLEASE SEND A CO
YOUR RESPONSE TI
CITY CLERK
RECEIVED `
SEP 1 9 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
1
> One of the commissioners at the last meeting said that perhaps at some
> point they would have to consider the cumulative effect of approving
> destruction of a variety of older homes and approval of big new ones,
> which
> each seem reasonable in the singulat. Isn't this precisely their
> j ob?
> If not theirs, is it the council's? Or noone's? The cumulative effect
> deeply changes the character of the community. This is exactly the
> point.
>
> I can tell you that the two small, 80-year-old spanish houses across the
> street from me have been lovingly kept by their owners. If they ever
> sell, will the cify approve their destruction, too? It won't be a
> matter
> of condition, as it is claimed to be for 1108. It will take us farther
> away from the type of place we want to live in.
>
> I have every expectation that the house at 1036 has been approved for
> destruction. Those of us who live in these neighborhoods and love
> them,
> want to know when and how this can ever stop, or even slow down. It's
> really heartbreaking.
� .
> Sincerely,
>
> Deborah
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Deborah Magid
> Director of Strategic Alliances
� IBM, Software Group
> 4100 Bohannon Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
> 650.926.6009 dmagidQus.ibm.com
> Executive Assistant: Mellody Rucker 650.926.6017
>
�
#307678 1/1 1036 CABRILLO AV 466/BUR BD 5 BA 3 LP:$1,695,000
ZC:94010 CS:CARMELITA SF:3480/C LR: TL:$0
CO:SMC PG: HZ:O VT:O AG:99 KT: CA:$0
TB:0728 E6 BD: MB: MP:$0
HS:O HD:O TR:EASTON ADDITION LS:100X120 DR: AF:$0
MS:O PN:026-166-170 ZN:Rl FR: TX:$0
ES:O ED:O OW: RT:$0 TT:
Tl: OC:T/ LD:09/FE/03 DOM:1
T2: OP: XD:09/SE/03 OLP:$1,695,000
LO:CASHIN COMPANY CASHN.Ol RP:650-340-9688 SC:10/FE/03 RD:10/FE/03
LA:ANTHONY GALLI CR:2.5 AP:650-737-1557 IS:F
LANDMARK ITALIAN VILLA IN EASTON ADDITION ON LARGE LEVEL LOT 100X120!
SPECTACULAR SETTING! LARGE HOME WITH DRAMATIC SKYLIT ATRIUM. CO-LISTED WITH
ED STEPHENS (650)737-1566. SHOWN BY APPOINTMENT ONLY WITH LISTING AGENTS.
DETACHED HOUSE 3+ STORIES MEDITERRANEAN TRADITIONAL
GROUND FLR BDRM 1 MB SUITE 3 BTHS 2+ STALL SHOWRS
TUB WITH JETS TUB MSTR BDRM SEP FAMILY ROOM EAT IN KITCHEN
LIBRARY DEN OR STUDY BONUS ROOM RECREATION ROOM
UTILITY ROOM LAUNDRY-INSIDE FORMAL ENTRY EXTRA STORAGE
YES-FIREPLACE FP-LIVING RM FP-FAMILY RM FP-OTHER LOC
CONCRETE PERIM W/W CARPETING HARDWOOD FLOORS TILE FLOORS
CENTL FORCD AIR NO COOLING TILE ROOF TAR & GRAVEL RF
WOOD EXTERIOR PUBLIC WTR CO SEWER IN & CONN 1 CAR GARAGE
ATTACHED PRKNG ELEC GT/DR OPNR 8000+ -.25 AC DECK
PATIO/DECK CVRD SPRINKLERS-FRNT SPRINKLERS-REAR AUTO SPRNKLRS
1ST LN-CONV ALL CASH/CONV POSS-COE COOKTOP RANGE
2+ OVENS SELF CLN OVEN 1 DISHWASHER DISPOSER
220 VOLTS/KTCHN GAS/KITCHEN GAS/LNDRY AREA GAS WTR HTR
CABLE TV AVAIL TV ANTENNA CEILING FAN HIGH CEILINGS
FL-SEE REPORT GEO/FLOOD RPT RE TRANSF DISCL EARTHQUAKE DSCL
APPT ONLY CALL LIST AGENT EXCL RIGHT(ER)
5 BDRMS
2+ TUBS
SEP DINING ROO
WORKSHOP
ATRIUM
WOOD BURNING-F
GAS HEAT
STUCCO EXTERIO
1 CAR CARPORT
PATIO
NO POOL
BUILT-IN OVEN
TRASH COMPACTO
SKYLIGHT(S)
FLT ZN-SEE RPT
NO KEYSAFE
** This Information Is Believed To Be Accurate But Is Not Guaranteed **
PROGRAM COMPLETED Port 0980 CASHN.Ol 03-02-10 12:55:11
COPYRIGHT 2003 RE INFOLINK
� � �
�e3� C�.b���� ��-
C�i4iiUl�;3�#t;�;�f� �EC��V��
��� P'�P1�RA I 10�`f
,� �T aF� �� ���'
62/05/20e3 07:00 6503408435
January 30, 2003
Stephen Fong
1001 Cabnllo Avenue
Bwlingamc, CA 94010
Danicl Griffin
1015 Cabrillo Avenuc
Burlingame, CA 94010
Atu� Thomas
1520 Drake Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Neighbors:
PAGE 02
I have submitted a plan for a new home at 1036 Cabnllo. I understand that youhave
concerns regarding the application. At the last Planning Commission meering the
Cammission rcquested that I work with an outside architat appointed by the City to
implement changes. I have madc the changes that were suggested and received a vcry
positive report from the outside architect. If you would like to see the ncw, modified plan
or have any concerns please call me at (650) 796-1554.
Sincerely
���l}�
Otto Miller
MILLERDEVELOPMENT
Sally Dvwning
1801 Carmelita Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Vitas Viskanta
1704 Sanchcz Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
I
�
,�.A�` c�T� �m CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJNCtAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�. BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL:(650)558-7250
Site: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Application for mitigated negative declaration and
design �eview for a new, two-story single family pUBLIC HEARING
dwelling and detached garage at: 1036 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-166-170). NOTICE
, __
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission ,
announces the following public hearing on Monday,
January 27, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
California.
Mailed: January 17, 2003 �
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applica ' � a�s r� �,� ay be reviewed prior
to the meeting a � Plar�ning" Depa�ent 1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Cal' a. '' �,
:.�� �
If you chal ge t `nbject application(s) in"court, ��' u m
raising onl hos ssues;you nr��samec�ne e�se raised a he
described i ce or ,tn wniten coixe�pondenc ��
at or rior f �` �' � ' -
P ��` ��.,
� � t. � �. �,: � �� t �a.
Property o ers o r� i �ztic� are re���� onsi or
tenants ab t thi no i� �iztional informatio p:
558-7250. ank u.
�
�� � �� � �
#
Margaret o�� � � � /
City Planner , ��-�• ,�
PU ��l
�
(Please refer to other side)
�
ICE
be limited to
iblic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
�
�
�
�r�, cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
au�uN�w�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT :
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA.94010
�`�,,,;m,,,,�.�'� TEL: (650) 558 7250
1036 CABRILLO AVBNiJ$
�. I
�
(Please refer to other side) <: I
_ �_
Application for design review_for a new
two-story single-€amily dweliing-and
detached garage at 1036`Cabrillo Avenue,
zoned R-1. (APNc 026-166=170)
The City of Burlingame Planning �-
" Commission announces the following �
publid hearing on Moada , Se tember 23,
2002:.at 7:OD P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 5Q1.-Primros�
-Road; Burlingame, California. I
I
Mailed September 13, 2002 i
� _ _. ...
A copy of the applica '
to the meeting a
; Burlingame, Cal' �
If you chal ge t
raising onl hos ssues
described i t `c
at or'prior t t __
;
C .,�t
Property o ers o�r
tenants : ab t thi no i
558-7250: ank u. �
�
- 1Vlargaret ���
City Planner .�
��
� PU
(Please refer to other si
PUBLIC HEARING
. NOTICE
0 : ' •
g. .
� �..� � s:y. . ."� e- -� � s
.
• =
`s�- � {J / � ��, .� ' � ' � . �
`� �,��.� � ;, �. � ��
��.�� Y �� �� �- � ���
3.v°' l y � � � ����!�� ; �.
3�; �g, � a �� -�, "��- � �;� �a . y� . -
��� ��.� r�aE, i �; ����..�'S�. - � �j� �
A .; a��.: � i • �a. 1 � a�� �� ! !s� - � � �
.�� >� !
_ ,_ _ ' .; t. , , .
t��y ���K�., y�� �k r:;.,....: , J._.:�.. �i 1 �
i
�`��•` �• ����-<
� : 8 � �! ��i - i � � ��. ' I � 1
� � y `� � ..
�'ts �� � - �� �� ;:
�'�''=`' `
: �">.
_ '� : �. � � :�'
' _ . � --- � '
,�r�' �r o.�. CITY OF BURLINGAME
e�RUN��ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
; BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�'b,...e���..'' TEL: (650) 558-Z250
Site: 1036 Cabrillo Ave.
: Application for mitigated negative �declaratiarr and '�' .
design revievv for a new two-story single family '
dwelling and detached garage at: 1036 Cabrillo Ave., PUBLIC HEARINCa
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-166-170)." ,
� NOTICE
.. _ _ _ ___
_ _..
� The City of Burlingame. Planning Commission - � � � �' �' �'� � (apzs .�a��o. oz .�a�'a.� asz�apa)
announces the following.public hearing on Monday,
February 10, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers loeated at 501 Primrose Road, 3�� .� (�d
Burlingame, California.'
, . ► � ,,
Mailed; January 31, 2003 ,: �4 �
{�r .IauuLja �ji�
, $Q.. F `` r� ���o ��1L�ILj/�
, � � � f,.
1 i � �n Xu� 'OSZL-8SS
(Please refer to other side) : : ',�OS9�: Iig� a aid ot��uuo�ui t ou t� .� q� s�u�ua;
�a�� �un.uio 1�o isuo t a:z� s.za o�f�ado�zd
, , d, J"' N I �B ` CJ 3! 7 b` �
' i � .IOI.ICI d0 �L .,
�i�t� au� o� p a �' t paqu�sap' ',
r. . . ,. . ._ ,
`�uu�a.q��t�q, a pa sanss sou juo:�utst�z;
� � � � � � � � � � 01 pa�iuzij aq �� Euz n � `q �;� ��� � � � i) � f�; ,�� '',� �,�� ,i� � !�� � � a� � j�u� no�i � � � �
� � � �� I �'� �� I I' � ' �
� . � . `auz��ut zn
�
.i � . i g
,
, ...
,
, _
°p�o� a.so.n�u� 1 � �ua �d � , �j � �ut�aauz ac� o�.
:. xoud pam�Tn�z aq �i� �iiddz au� �a �do� d
;. y, , .,. . -
�:
,..:
. . � "3l%1l�VrJn11721l1,S �O �11�
.
-�
���. c rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJNS',AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�,+ BURLINGAME, CA 94010
w.,.,,,,,,,�•''• TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Application for mitigated negative declaration and
design review for a new two-story single family
dwelling and detached garage at: 1036 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-166-170).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on Monday,
March 10, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the Ciry Hall Council
Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
California.
Mailed: February 28, 2003
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
�..
A copy of the appiica '�
to the meeting a a �
Burlingarne, Cal'< r�rrfia.
If you chal ge t��bj
raising onl hos ssues
described i t
c,
at or prior t t
�` �
Property o ers
o re
tenants ab t thi no�i �
558-7250. ank _ u.
�° ��
Margaret o �
City Pianner �
�
_.,
"v ����.
PUI���.�
(Please refer to other side)
�--
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
blic hearing,
3 to the city
ming their
call {650)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made
for desig,n review for a new, two-story dwelling with a detached gara�e at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue,
zoned R-1, Eugene and Maureen Supanich, property owners, APN: 026 166 170;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 10, 2003, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no
substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the
environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per
Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or
structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a
residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
2. Said parking variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such parking variances are as set forth in the minutes and
recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, Ralph Osterling, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the l Oth day of March , 2003, by the following vote:
Secretary
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and design review.
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective March 17, 2003
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.6 and sheet L.1, and that any
changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before
a Building permit is issued;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12 and October 7, 2002 memos, the Fire
Marshal's and the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memos, City Arborist's
August 12, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's August 6, 2002 memo shall be
met;
7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
8. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building envelope;
9. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
11. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Iirigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height;
13. that the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site
Investigation by J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Department
September 16, 2002; including that the existing swimming pool shell shall be removed
and that the area backfilled to a relative compaction of 95%minimum, and that the
foundation type shall be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade beams;
14. that at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall
construction work or materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall, including but not limited to construction
personnel, debris, or equipment;
15. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be
required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
16. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the creek bed or storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing
the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed,
locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be
protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or
sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated
construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas;
17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;
18. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale
dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock
piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls
and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been
established;
19. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building
Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met;
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
20. that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall
construction work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to
construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
21. that protective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the
existing rock retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the
buildable area on the site;
22. that the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition
permit is issued to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and
requirements are being met;
23. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work
order shall be placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to
review by the Artny Corps of Engineers andlor California Department of Fish and Game
and if permits are required;
24. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, which limits to hours of
construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. There shall be no
heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site on weekends or holidays;
25. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the
interior noise level within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does
not exceed 45 dBA;
26. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the
building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how
60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and
the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan;
27. that prior to being issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to
prepare and submit to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and
installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be
designed so that it will not negatively impact the existing residences that are services by
the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue;
28. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
29. that the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on
the plans approved by the Planning Commission;
30. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any
demolition or construction takes place on the site;
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Design Review
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
31. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be
halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City
Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of
the City; and
32. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.
>, i �'�� �
-«
�; �1 �:
/ -� � � �
� �'
f .r� j, �k�" , _ .
� �s �� �
% ""k x <' � .. �
x
� � , ..� � � �. ..
a / �
�
� / � , � r . � y�,„, , �*�„v ' .;'7 : { � z
a
s � a� J 1 _ �'a� �` �'�"� . \ � a
�` �t �` � . �:.'i�x'�" . ., k,
� ,
�, . . � � �, � � � , � _� ..
..; s� 4 <. � ? z%„?� � y; - , _ .
. a �' a ,�M �,e
t�i �-` � I ��� �.. ,s �� .
/ ' ... �:. . .
(
♦ . 'C?:,,�" . �.�,��,?; .. i}
a � �'" \
� � ��ti f+ r.,
.
�
„ �� � '�
d i} :
� a r t ?� � � �� � „ �
� ` � ��� ' � �
� �' � � � � �� �,
t , :�S � _ ' �,..
�
a�� ( ,,,� s � � �- � � ;,� �
T �'q
� � �```' z �.
� �
� �
� _ ,�
" J �
� � ���
_ ,�
� � — � ����.
/ ' � � �� � x �E�' 1
�� �.
, �., �� � � �
� �� „��no � � `�� � �� ` � �� � � �
� . ,� �,��:
�� �° � �
��,,, , � � ,f � �: + t �� . s ��3
� _ �r �_- � � � � , � ��.
�, �,.
�� � ��.1� � �*� r ,'�. i � � r, r , 1`, P
��� � �� f P� � �• � � ;a � �� k^� '.�' 4 '`��
� > ,.
,. , � �,n, � `� ���:� �
, � �E, , ,
.�`,
<i v < . p r /" - 4L � �� ) 'fi n,-� f" '
- « v< � '^ .` .
�`A� y \q� .. .r ;� ...
' 1�AI , . , V .� , . , .. . .
^k •
, �... . B.,'�" ,a � I'
\
�+ '?« . � � i 7n �
��3�� m��(�%�J ,, • + N � ��F
� �' _, � ' %- ♦ :« I� � I
"'".,� � � � � �' � � `nN� r' � �, , �
•
� .r'- � � ,� l�C. � •'�, � . ,� fi
j� . f9i i 1�` ` " � ��� � ,. � �a < y i ,
: r ,
rt
� � � �� �
* � �.
`S% y . �, > .�-, "3 � -,n
{r .
{' � ' �
7� _`I , , �Z a.�+✓� � �\ ,x3'`"�`� \ ��aha� .� " ,��m
e
:v . nk��'�.D`������ , � y4� �'d' � /
�� � `h
a,?�.
e�
� `r r � .€ _A'
2.
- .h C �� / ��;�� t��.
` r. /
I �j F j� J �. �
P g /
. .� F z Q ���g �� � ( � 9 i"� . .� ��
� �, � y 3 �.k +3 '� M ~ p�,�+y \,4 � � � � / f r,� I
/ �,��J" � �� � r ��. ' � z�1 '� r,� � �i ; c
/ � � � r ' � 'T � i9� �� �.r �� U/ i
„ `��`x �j � � / j v �` J s �,.� ,. % ' � �" � 'r �a ��' c..' �„� ., /i .
�?` '�;� � L `'a � �� �� � .� �
a > �� � �-
` ( f� � � ` �� ,�� %��,!3 :� Y � C� '� ��f ri`
�r �� � �� � ^�e� � ,�. `
,; ` "`
� f < � * � � �-
' i ,?? �' �
;� � �
,P �� yf� . y .- �,-1 , <� ��,"� 4 ��� (� � �" � � �'� �
�I, �a
� ; ���'�i
� - �. "� � „�� ., , i, ..., ' 1% a,'.. '�'"�,.,- �" � . za.�.,...,�y��_� � c y �� /
� g
. � � �`�, � � t � "' � � � /
sfi�, � a r � 3'�� � n..� ' � ��'��> cv -,�
�� o �� s, �� , � �� ;
� : z �' _ �.` = e :�
; �
_
. �, . � � �
�. > ,, .
��� � � / �
z `._ � �<�. r ��;y�` s _` ^ �, �`�;, m� . , , r��., � a�� l m. `� � �
hS+ �' '� M,4. s�� Y .� � �i , � it -r' %'S , 'd" v�, x �, \ J \�^'�,°i o
,
9
4 sS •
a
� .a� ;:z.�' �`'� s�;, �, � `t- � ,�. � x % v �, �`�v
�`� � �� � � � � �� ��r �� ix � � � �"``��' �
. , �.
.
: J ,
�� .,� � � �� � � � t x .F,', ��°r����t�t��, ,�.
3: w ` \. - i _ C
" {�,. L . Po XL '� `l
'%(f � �*. �� t"'a '�` ki i � �� ��. y'n+,.� � � il I��
,*,... '°6 1 �-- �i� .x; ..'�" / � . '� t � '`y
`� $�� � �nr� � ��'_� ��. ,3�u `�ti ..s�`��� - ^ , <���
.'
;� � °� a � il�i��c, ,�,� �' f`, � �' '�� I:'�� � d� d� r�����r
� `� �� � � � �� � �r ��� �� t��
. . �, � � `�
,�
', -n� � �I :; d � . � �,?�:� �
�a
� '°�- a'`�, .� L 1 �c �` r' � �.
Y
r. .� . �?.. �� "�'� r t�
= c ., s � k:.., � ��`i� r�.'� � �
��� � �� � ,�,� �r -
��� �� d ��- �~.�-' x ������� • � .
� t�,�, �� `'� "�;�,r , 5� .���¢;�,'> y ,s''
dr _ 3 ��* �' , � ,t
� �� � / n
fr r�. '� F� � j� �°�i� 3� t�%� A ���`� � ; � ��
ti �� ;'�,� �.e : � �y ,� � ��, � � g �'.�
�,
, . �
�a x �'. `' �a._ �t ��a :, ` . .., �",;J �/ .� a �*' `' `' . � . �' � s��xT
� �ti � �
- r,
e
, . �_
, _ � �,
���" ` � �a�,.:'�a� <r � �` , o / �9 2
, � �
�� . - � �
q. `�3 ,�dt4�'� r� �c,a� � 1 �.,. # �» � .
,
�, �
< ..�.` . t '�" � �,� ��.� " �'
' . r�,g � 9� s � s .,r "� � �� ,��
., � z . � ° l�l
�' � `i � ` �.. �,� ! t�-� ( -��'
�a � <
\n i f
„,
� � , �b. c�M� .s�, � „'°� � r� r y�r���%. , „+��� �
� _ � �@
,s �� �+ ' ��°v� . � �,�'�. �,
'> k��', �C � ` � `'�'`' ,A. �r �.a �.�€-. "'�'
���. �1:� '� a� 3 �,j ��� .s'' z � ,�. �.w, -�vr/ � .
, �.�' * gy' � 7� � '' � L'r"� '.F° ` .�`..
^` �:
_ �
,
� � �
k ,: ��
„" „ ` a. �p �� � fi �
�P�f . 3 _ � 4 a� � a
+.,
�� �\ f yy ir�� ♦
� (
�� k., � ��/.d� ,
u
e %/ .
.�'�... �. .#a�r-, ri G,� ..
� y ♦
i '� �
s � ; �
, �� Y . . ,.. '�. .��
CITY OF BURLINGAME
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND-528 P, 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, construction of a new two-story, single-family dwelling with
detached garage.
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on February 6, 2003, completed a review of the proposed
project and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Prolect Description: The parcel at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three lots (Lot 13, 14, 15) at the
corner of Cabrillo and Carmelita Avenue. A single-family dwelling merges lots 14 and 15. Lot 13 is
developed with a swimming pool used in conjunction with the single family dwelling, but Lot 13 is not
merged to Lots 14 or 15 by the presence of any structures or parking use and is an independently buildable
lot. Sanchez Creek runs the length of the east side of Lot 13.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 to create a parcel with the address of
1032 Cabrillo Avenue. Lot 13 is 12,000 SF (100' width x 120' length) and approximately 60% of this area,
or 7,200 SF, is buildable land area above the creek bed level. The proposed dwelling for 1032 Cabrillo
Avenue is two-story with a detached garage. The project meets all zoning code requirements
Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed single-family dwelling is located in a residential area currently
developed with single-family homes of similar size. Therefore, there will be no increase in traffic or
demand for public services. Issues related to the stability of the proposed dwelling, as well as construction
impacts to the creek habitat and trees on the site have been adequately addressed by the mitigation
measures contained in the initial study. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,
it is found that based on the mitigation measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
� ���
Signature of Processing Official
City Planner �`�� (a ��
Title Date
The determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,
unless the comtnission's action is appealed to the City Council.
Date posted: February 6, 2003
Negative Declaration
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Declaration of Postin�
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true
copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council
Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on February 6, 2003.
ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
-2-
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title:
►�
3
�
5
�
7
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning: R-1
1032 Cabrillo Avenue
City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
Parcel with an address of 1032 Cabrillo Avenue,
Burlingame, California
Otto Miller
911 N. Amphlett Blvd.
San Mateo CA 94402
Low-Density Residential
APN: 026-166-170
8. Description of the Project: The parcel at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three lots (Lot 13, 14, 15) at
the corner of Cabrillo and Carmelita Avenues, with the narrow exterior end of each lot fronting on Cabrillo
Avenue. A single-family dwelling merges lots 14 and 15. Lot 13 is developed with a swimming pool used
in conjunction with the single family dwelling, but Lot 13 is not merged to Lots 14 or 15 by the presence of
any residential structures or related parking use and is an independently buildable lot. Sanchez Creek runs
the length of the east side of Lot 13.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 to create a parcel with the address of
1032 Cabrillo Avenue. Lot 13 is 12,000 SF (100' width x 120' length) and approximately 60% of this area,
or 7,200 SF, is buildable land area above the creek bed level. The proposed dwelling for 1032 Cabrillo
Avenue is two-story with a detached garage. The project meets all zoning code requirements.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is on the north side of Cabrillo Avenue and 100 feet
east of the intersection with Carmelita Avenue. Sanchez Creek runs the length of the east side of the
property and there is a 10-foot public sewer easement at the rear of the site. Cabrillo Avenue
terminates 250 feet east of the site at the city limit bordering the town of Hillsborough. The
surrounding land use is single-family residential. The majority of the existing lots in the neighborhood
are approximately 6,000 to 6,500 SF, with the creek-side lots generally irregularly shaped and having
larger lot areas.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structures.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
X Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Hydrology & Water X Noise Agricultural Resources
Quality
Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation/Traffic X Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the envirorunent, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a" potentially significant unpact" or " potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mirigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
��� � �
Marg et onroe, City Planner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Signifcant Significant ImpaCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program 1,2 X
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? 1 16 X
,
2. POPiTLATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial popularion growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastruchue)? 1,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 3 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5,6,7 X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 5,7,21 X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 5,7,21 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 5,6,7 X
iv) Landslides? 6 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 4,5,21 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 5,21 X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 5,6,7,2 X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life 1
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,5 X
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9,10,11 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,21 X
substanrially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impBCt
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which pernuts have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 1,4,9,
siltation on- or off-site? 21 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or 1,4,9, X
river, or substanrially increase the rate or amount of surface 21
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 1219' X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 4 9
>>>
21 X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 4,10,12 X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area struchues which would 4,10,12 X
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1 X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following detemunations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obshuct implementarion of the applicable air 1,13 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,13 X
projected air quality violarion?
c) Result in a cumularively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,13 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient au quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quanritative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,13 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,13 X
people?
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,4 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or con�estion at
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Uniess Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? 15 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,14 X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp 2,4 X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incomparible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2 X
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,4 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,4 X
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either d'uectly or through
habitat modifications, on any species idenrified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish 1,8,11,
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 19 X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,11,16
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but 1,11,16 X
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,11,16
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecring 1,8,19 X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,11,16 X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservarion plan?
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1,18 X
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 1,18 X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the envirorunent 1,17 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signi�cant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 1�2� 1 � X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
envirorunent?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 1,4,17 X
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 1� X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 1, 14 X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airsh-ip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 X
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 1,20 X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,20 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are internuxed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generarion of noise levels in excess of 1,2,4,9 X
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generarion of excessive groundborne 1,4 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substanrial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,2,4,9 X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,14 X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the 1 }{
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signiticant Signifcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,20 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,4,9 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1,4,9 X
treatment facilities or expansion of existing faciliries, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of 1,4,9 X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 1,4,9 X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a detemrination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,9 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient pernutted capacity to 1,9 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,9 X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 1 X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2,4 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,4 X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X
historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,4 X
archaeological resource pwsuant to'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,4 X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources so���es Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signi£cant Signi�cant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
formal cemeteries?
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,4 X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recrearional facilities or require the 1,4 X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAI. RESOURCES. In deterniining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
proj ect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farniland or Farmland of 1 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their locarion or nahue, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X
to non-agricultural use?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potenrial to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the 1,4,8,
major periods of California history or prehistory? 11,19 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("C�mulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)?
1
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 1 X
Initial Study ,Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 The City ofBurlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition.
3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing EZement, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4 Site Plan for Lot 13, date stamped January 31, 2003.
5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971.
6 E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, Califomia,
1972.
7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF,
San Mateo County: California, 1987.
8 Mayne Tree Company Arborist Reports, dated December 20, 2002.
9 Engineering Memos dated July 30 and October 7, 2002.
10 LTI buildable lot area and flood plain calculations date stamped July 29, 2002, by the Planning Depariment.
11 Envuonmental Collaborative Biological Resource Assessment, dated December 30, 2002.
12 Map of Approximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas, from the Narional Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981.
13 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1995.
14 San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco Internarional Airport, December 1994.
15 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997.
16 Map ofAreas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department
of Fish and Game.
17 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998.
18 E. Brabb, F. Taylor, and G. Miller, Geologic, Scenic and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, Deparhnent
of Interior, 1982.
19 City Arborist memo dated August 12, 2002.
20 Fire Department memo dated August 5, 2002.
21 Geotechnical Site Investigation, J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Department September 16,
2002.
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo.4venue
Land use and Planning Summary: The lot proposed for single-family residential development is 12,000
SF, a density of 3.6 units per acre. The Zoning Code establishes a minimum lot size for this area of 5,000 SF
and the low-density residential designation of the General Plan allows a maximum of 8 units per acre in this
area. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. The R-1 zoning
district permits new single-family residences, provided they complete design review to evaluate the
architectural consistency of the design for the proposed dwelling and for the compatibility of the proposed
residence with the neighborhood setting.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density
residential uses. The proposed infill residential development conforms to the City of Burlingame General
Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area.
The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will create more housing by
adding a net number of one house on the site.
Geologic Summary: The lot proposed for development is relatively flat, with an increasing slope near the
creek bed. The site is located in an urban setting that has been developed with single-family homes for
approximately 83 years. It is approximately 2 miles from the San Andreas Fault, but is not within the
Alquist-Priola zone. The site is 2.7 miles from the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have
common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The seismic exposure will
be reduced over the present development, since the residences will incorporate the seismic construction
requirements of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition.
The site is fairly level and does not have a history of landslides. The soil type is designated as QTs, which is
a deformed older sedimentary deposit which primarily consists of irregularly bedded gravel, sand and silt
clay. Under seismic conditions most Burlingame soils are reasonably stable. This site is in a bedrock area
that is below the lowest level (less than 0.01 probability) of liquefaction susceptibility. The project will be
required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability.
The applicant submitted a soils report for the site to study the removal of the existing swimming pool and the
stability of soils for new construction. The footprint of the proposed house, at the southeast corner, will be 6
inches from the existing retaining wall at the top of the creek bank. The soils report recommends that for
maximum stability of the new dwelling, the existing swimming pool shell should be removed and the area be
backfilled to a relative compaction of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type for the new dwelling
should be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade beams. Adherence to the recommendations listed in
the soil report will reduce the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
Mitigation:
• That the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural
stability.
• That the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site Investigation by
J. Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Deparhnent September 16, 2002; including that
the existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and that the area backfilled to a relative compaction
of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type shall be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade
beams.
10
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Water Summary: Sanchez Creek runs the length of the East side of the property. This project is a
residential infill development project and the buildable land area on the site is located in Flood Zone B,
which is outside the 100-year flood zone. Based on information submitted by the applicant, the top of bank
line on the site is the top of the existing rock retaining wall. The land area surrounding the creek bed and up
to some portions of the top of bank is located in Flood Zone A and is within the 100-year flood zone. With
the proposed application, there is no construction proposed below the top of bank line or within Flood Zone
A.
Approximately 42 feet from the front properiy line, a wood plank bridge has been constructed to span
Sanchez Creek and the creek area north of that point was culverted with cement some time after the property
was originally developed in the 1920's. The culvert ends at the northern boundary of the property. There is a
10-foot public sewer easement running along the rear of the property with a cement bridge that spans
Sanchez Creek and carries the sewer line. There is an approximately 10-foot gap where the creek is visible
between the end of the culvert on the subject property and the cement bridge on the public right-of-way.
Public Works records show that at times of high water flow the following two events have occurred: debris
collected to the south side of the wood plank bridge on the site and caused water to run over the top of the
creek bed, and because the culvert restricted the volume of water allowed to flow in the creek, the velocity of
water flow was increased, causing the water to flow over the top of the culvert at the gap near the north end
of the property. Records indicate that in heavy rains these events cause water to flow over the top of the
creek bed and culvert, but not beyond the top of bank retaining wall line. The creek area has been developed
in this manner for a number of years and, in that time, several houses have been built downstream within the
flood plane.
Mitigation:
� That at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or
materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock retaining
wall, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment.
• That all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
• That the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain
system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and
slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut1fi11 and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing
vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive
areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging
areas and washout areas.
� That off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas.
• That methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain
inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas
shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until
permanent erosion controls have been established.
Air Quality Summary: The proposed application is for one single-family residence on Lot 13. While this
project may accommodate more people than the previous use, the change in emissions generated by one new
11
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
house at this location over emissions from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within
walking distance of countywide bus service. The lot is zoned for low-density residential development and
with proper adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not
create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally.
Mitigation:
• That demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required
to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition, gading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the
BAAQMD permit shall be met.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: The site is on Cabrillo Avenue, a local street that terminates
approximately 250 feet east of the proposed project site, after it intersects with Sanchez Avenue. Cabrillo
Avenue has access to both Sanchez and Carmelita Avenues, both collector streets that provide access to El
Camino Real, a regional arterial. This project will not create a permanent substantial increase in the traffic
generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to
accommodate any incremental traffic or trip generation produced by the proposed net increase of one
dwelling. The proposed single-family dwelling meets the on-site parking requirements established in the
zoning code.
Biological Resources Summary: The site has been fully developed and used for residential uses since
approximately 1920. There are 7 protected-size Redwood trees on site, 4 on the north side of the creek and 3
on the south side of the creek. The four Redwood trees on the north side of the creek are a distance ranging
from 7'-6" to 11'6" to the proposed construction and are below the top of bank/existing retaining wall line.
The 7 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There is no
construction proposed below the top of bank, but there may be a potentially significant impact to the health
of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. Protective fencing should be established along the west
(highest level) of the existing rock retaining wall separating the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable
area on the site. No construction or construction materials shall be allowed to extend beyond the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall that represents the top of bank. The applicant must schedule an
inspection with the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree protection
measures are correctly installed and all requirements are being met. These protection measures will reduce
the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with the a single-family residence
is required to provide a minimum of l, 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 1,000 SF of
living space. The proposed landscape plan for the project provides six 24-inch box size trees and complies
with the reforestation requirements.
A biological survey submitted by the applicant found that due to the existing development of the creek area
on the site, that essential habitat for special-status species is generally absent from the site, and no adverse
impacts on special-status species are anticipated. The study states that no coordination with the Army Corps
of Engineers or California Department of Fish and Game is required, assuming construction is restricted to
outside the creek channel. The report also recommends that construction fencing shall be placed along the
top of the retaining wall bank on the west side of the creek extending along the west side of the redwoods to
be protected. No construction activities or disturbance shall be allowed within this protected zone without
12
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
prior approval of a qualified biologist and approval of jurisdictional agencies, if required.
Mitigation:
• That at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction
work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock
retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment.
• That protective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the existing rock
retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable area on the site.
• That the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued
to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and requirements are being met.
• That if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be
placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to handle
the addition of the single-family residence proposed with this application. The incremental increase to the
use of energy is insignificant primarily because the new residences will comply with Title 24 requirements.
Hazards Summary: This project has been designed to comply with all applicable zoning regulations. By its
residential nature, this project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not
interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement.
There are no known health hazards on the site. Compliance with the California Buildirig and Fire Code
requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not
exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. An NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff
from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
Noise Summary: The property has been a part of a site developed for approximately 83 years with a single-
family residence and accessory structures. The new proposal will not permanently increase the existing
ambient noise levels because it is a similar use to the surrounding uses and will be compliant with current
construction standards, including increased insulation, which also provides for noise attenuation. In addition,
the site is not located in an area regularly subject to unusual noise effects such as airplane fly-overs.
All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code, which limits
construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays
and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation or
hauling on the site on weekends or holidays. These measures will reduce the impact of the proposed
construction to less than significant.
Mitigation:
• All construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, which limits to hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site on weekends
or holidays.
• That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA.
13
Initial Study Summary
1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Public Services Summary: Because the project is infill, represents an insignificant increase in the total
population of the City, and is located on an already developed site, the existing public and governmental
services in the area have capacities that can accommodate the net increase of one single-family residence
proposed with the current application.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place
in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems.
There is an existing 6-inch sewer main running in the easement at the rear of the Lots 13, 14 and 15 that
serves the adjacent properties with frontage on Cabrillo and on Cortez. The proposed single-family dwelling
will connect to this existing main. The main is on the Public Works Department list for frequent
maintenance due to invasive tree roots. In addition, the concrete piers supporting the main are sinking so that
portions of the main sag. The Public Works Department has plans to improve the main by installing a steel
support structure at the termination of the main, at a point just north and east its juncture with the creek.
There will be no significant impact to the capacity or flow of the main sewer line as a result of the proposed
proj ect.
The existing house merging Lots 14 and 15 connects to a 4-inch water main on Carmelita Avenue. All of the
remaining properties along the north side of the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue connect to a 1-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue and terminates east of the creek. There is also existing 2-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue to the south of the 1-inch line that serves the houses on the south side of
Cabrillo Avenue. There are no water mains running along Cabrillo Avenue in front of Lots 13, 14 or 15.
Public Works records indicate that the existing 1-inch and 2-inch water lines closest to the subject property
cannot accommodate the water demands of an additional single-family dwelling. Therefore, prior to being
issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit to the City Engineer a
plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on
Lot 13. The service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the existing residences that are
services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Sanchez Creek runs along the Eastern length of the property. The site is tied into the existing storm water
distribution line located in front of Lot 13. There is adequate capacity in the storm water collections system
to accommodate the additional storm water run-off generated by a single-family dwelling on Lot 13. All of
the surface water will be required to drain to the street frontage.
The current solid waste service provider is BFI, which sends solid waste collected in Burlingame to the Ox
Mountain Landfill. Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general
contractor shall be required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream by transporting the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
The City of Burlingame has recently adopted an ordinance requiring recycling of construction waste and
demolition debris. The ordinance requires that 60 percent of the total waste tonnage generated from project
construction shall be diverted from the waste stream. The applicant is required to complete a Recycling and
Waste Reduction Form to be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official. It is required that
records shall be kept and submitted to the City prior to the final inspection of the project.
14
Initial Study Summary 1032 Cabrillo Avenue
Mitigation:
• That the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department
to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible
for the implementation of this plan.
• That prior to being issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit
to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to
the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the
existing residences that are services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Aesthetics Summary:
The proposed two-story single-family residential dwelling with detached garage will be replacing an existing
swimming pool. The proposed dwelling is subject to design review to insure that it is intemally
architecturally consistent in design and consistent with the existing size and mass of the dwellings in the
neighborhood. At this particular location, the land is flat and the area fully developed; no distant views or
vistas are present.
The 7 Redwood trees on site provide much of the ambience in the area and these trees will be protected
during construction and remain after construction. The applicant is proposing to fully landscape the lot as
shown on plans approved by the Planning Commission. The approved landscape plans meet the City's Urban
Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Because of building placement and added vegetation, there will be no significant increase in light and glare
on site from the proposed residential uses. Exterior lighting provided on the lot will be required to conform
to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. The
average front setback for the block is 22'-6" and the proposed residence matches this setback.
Mitigation:
• That this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.
• That the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission.
• That the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or
construction takes place on the site.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: The site involved in this project has been developed in
residential uses for many years prior to this proposal. The project will not include extensive grading or
digging, since the sites are relatively level and there are no below grade living areas proposed. Any
archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic sites, which may have been in or near these locations, were
disturbed or destroyed by previous development prior to this proposal. Should any cultural resources be
discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated.
Mitigation:
• That should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
15
Initial Study Summary
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing
recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of
Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not presently zoned or used for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, including seismic standards, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural
stability;
2. that the project shall conform to the recommendations noted in the Geotechnical Site Investigation by J.
Yang and Associates, date stamped by the Planning Deparhnent September 16, 2002; including that the
existing swimming pool shell shall be removed and that the area backfilled to a relative compaction of
95%minimum, and that the foundation type shall be drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade
beams;
3. that at no time during demolition or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or
materials extend below the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock retaining
wall, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
4. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
5. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed
topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas
with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures;
watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated
construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas;
6. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas;
7. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain
inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas
shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until
permanent erosion controls have been established;
8. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required
to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the
BAAQMD permit shall be met;
9. that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction
16
Initial Study Summary ]036 Cabrillo Avenue
work or materials extend beyond the top of bank represented by the western face of the existing rock
retaining wall boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment;
10. that protective fencing shall be installed along the west side (highest level) of the of the existing rock
retaining wall that separates the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable area on the site;
11. that the applicant must schedule an inspection by the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued
to insure that the tree protection measures are properly installed and requirements are being met;
12. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be
placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of
Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required;
13. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as
amended by the City of Burlingame, which limits to hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays. There shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site on weekends
or holidays;
14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within in any sleeping areas in the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA;
15. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building depariment
to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction
demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible
for the implementation of this plan;
16. that prior to being issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit
to the City Engineer a plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to
the proposed dwelling on Lot 13; the service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the
existing residences that are services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue;
17. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
18. that the applicant shall protect existing and proposed landscaping on the site as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission;
19. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or
construction takes place on the site; and
20. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the
recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
17
q � , � 1
S ��.
• i
t'
� ��fV.
`.��w���='
o � •����
� �:
i �:
`�^�,��....
� � '
1
.s �
� t _.. _`�' �.(
y �",�' s��;1="
" �i
i(� . S��Ok,��l
t:r,
rtn:'
: '.
� *,_.
:t:
.' �-
_ .� ��
�. � :. ��
.' . . ;7;
. f
V'...,��� .
� Y > �.
.
� ..
�. ` "
�� ...
. r ....._._..� , :
��`.• #_ � � .;.
t . t
�� i_
t
f�
:���4
� '::
�".�r:'?�- '�.:c� .. . ' . � _ .
F'�
- -� '',6.` . �
li?:d n.x,3 _
r �
_`
� ",:� `f�'"^?.Xi'�. i . . � j -
a:
..: y
�
�t � � �� ;'
� � • �.. �
,� . .
� �`; � *'
, :�
-, a ''� �}
/ .
�
�' e .
�
�✓�`i N .
.. �M1��.' s y
y� ' ^ ` .
l
� � ..
"^�,:'� �; _
—v.,,. � � � .. _ ;� �.
-�
`' - ,r��, �T,e!�� .�ti...
G� ;� �.�r . ' �
>L�----� - � �-�-�
�
��
�, , , ►:� ..
� .;r�. __
City of Burlingame
Mitigated Design Review for a New,
Two-Story Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Item # `i
Design Review Study
Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 02/10/03
Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage, zoned R-1 (C.S.
25.57.010)
Applicant: Otto Miller
Property Owner: Eugene and Maureen Supanich
Designer: James Chu/Chu Design & Engineering, Inc.
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-166-170
Lot Area: 12,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The site at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue consists of three separate lots. The two lots to the left (Lots 14 and
15) are merged by the construction of a large house over the lot lines. The third lot (Lot 13), contains a
swimming pool for the adjacent dwelling. Sanchez Creek also runs along the right hand side of Lot 13. Because
no dwelling or use extends across the lot line between the middle and the third lot (Lot 14 and 13), the third lot
stands as an independent, build-able lot.
The applicant is now proposing to demolish the swimming pool on Lot 13 and to build a new two-story single
family dwelling with detached garage on the emerged lot. The proposed house and detached garage will have a
total floor area of 4,783 SF (0.40 FAR) where 5,340 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house
that merges the adjacent 6,000 SF lots will remain.
The proposed house is adj acent to Sanchez Creek on a new 12,000 SF lot, of which 60% is above the top of the
creek bed. LTI Engineering has determined that the proposed house is outside the 100-year flood plain.
(Engineering report date stamped August 19, 2002 attached). The existing creek bed will not be changed or
altered by the development of the house.
The proj ect includes a new detached two-car garage (427 SF) that provides two code compliant covered parlcing
spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant
is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010).
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
APPLICATON STUDY 9/23/02
02/10/03
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 22'-6" 18'-6" * 22'-6" (block average)
(2nd flr): 25'-6" 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
Side (left): no change 11'-6" 7'-0"
(right): no change 45'-6" 7'-0"
Rear (Ist flr): 31'-6" 32'-6" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 31'-6" 32'-6" 20'-0"
Design Review for a New Two-Sto�y SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
APPLICATON STUDY 9/23/02
02/10/03
Lot Coverage: 2,814 SF 2,798 SF 4,800 SF
(23%) (23%) (40%)
FAR: 4,783 SF 4,883 SF 5,340 SF*
0.40 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.45 FAR
# of bedrooms: no change 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�Zo� X 20�� �20� X 20�� �20� X 20��
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 28'-5" 28'-5" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: complies complies C.S.25.28.075
* Front setback variance was eliminated.
History: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 9, 2002, the Commission
reviewed an application for a new two-story single-family dwelling and detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo
Avenue. The Commission continued the item, requesting additional information and revisions to the plans. The
proj ect returned to design review study on September 23, 2002, with the applicant submitting revised plans and a
letter from the applicant date stamped September 16, 2002 to address the Commission's concerns with the
project. The revisions also resulted in a front setback variance (see bullet points below for Commission
comments and revisions to the project during the two study hearings).
• Commission's comment
➢ Applicant's response
• Commission concerned with adj acent house since the proposed design is more like this design the houses in
the rest of the neighborhood; need more information regarding the applicant's intention for the adjacent
property; is applicant under contract to purchase properties;
➢ The applicant has stated in attached letter that the adj acent house is currently being leased to a family that has
been living there for the last three months, that no immediate plans have been prepared for the existing house
and property, and the applicant is under contact for a lease/option agreement with the property owner which
does not have to be exercised unti12003;
• Concerned with creek and soils; has a soils report been prepared;
➢ A soils report has been prepared by J. Yang and Associates based on the current plans with the general
conclusion that the site is suitable from a geotechnical aspect for the proposed single family dwelling;
2
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
• Concerned with mass and bulk of house;
➢ The proposed house has been reduced in size from 5,139 SF (.43 FAR) to 4,883 SF (.41 FAR) where 5,340
SF (.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed; the reduction in FAR was achieved by reducing the length of the first
floor by 1'-0" and the width by 2'-6"; the second floor length was reduced by 3'-0"; and
➢ The overall height of the structure has been reduced from 29'-6" to 28'-5";
• Is it possible to lower plate heights;
➢ The second floor plate height has been reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-1";
• Opportunity to add planters along driveway side;
➢ The left side setback has been increased from 10'-0" to 11'-6" to allow for planters along the driveway;
• Front porch should be deeper;
➢ The front porch has been increased in size, now extends into the front setback and requires a front setback
vanance;
• Beautiful setting, need stronger connection to creek;
• Possible bigger windows;
• Great opportunity to add French doors at dining room oriented to creek;
➢ French doors have been added to the family room at the rear of the house that open to the backyard;
➢ A covered porch has been added on the right side with French doors opening from the dining room; and
• House feels big, should have more backyard;
➢ The rear setback has been increased from 25'-0" to 32'-6", thus increasing the size of the backyard;
At the continued study hearing on September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended that an initial
study for the proj ect and voted to refer the proj ect to the a design review consultant, based on the comments list
below.
• this creek lot is unique and the proposed house does not take advantage of the natural setting;
• a split level floor plan, a wrap-around porch, and other design options are available to connect the house
to the creek setting and make the house less massive and to reduce the impact of the house on the street;
• there is an upstairs deck proposed on the house that looks out on a telephone pole, where it could be re-
located to the other side to have a view of the Redwoods;
• concern over the front setback variance, this a large lot and house is starting from scratch, where is the
justification for a variance;
• the porch should be retained, but look into decreasing the length of the house to eliminate the front
setback variance and also keep a sizeable backyard;
• feel the site supports a house of the proposed size, but as currently designed the house is too massive and
bulky;
• concern with the impact of the construction on the Redwood trees and the creek;
• designer should look into shifting the center of gravity of the house to the South and reducing the left
elevation so that there will be less visual impact if the existing house at 1032 Cabrillo were demolished at
some point in the future; and
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
• it is important to have early review of impacts to Redwoods and the creek, would like to see an initial
study for environmental review prepared by staff with the appropriate studies submitted by the applicant.
Design Reviewer's Comments: The applicant met with the design review consultant on two separate occasions
and made revisions to the design for the proposed dwelling three times. The design review consultant
recommends approval of the proj ect (see January 13, 2003 Comments), noting in particular that the applicant has
addressed concerns about mass and bulk and compatibility with the creek setting with the following revisions:
➢ a change in materials from stucco to shingle with a wood base;
➢ the chimney was eliminated from the right side elevation;
➢ the main house roof sheds down on the front, right side of the dwelling to the first floor level; and
➢ the front setback variance was eliminated by setting the house further back on the lot and at the same
time, the porch depth was increased from 5'-0" to 10'-0" and the length was increased from 8'-0" to 22'-0".
Finally, the designer notes that the applicant could further reduce the apparent mass of the dwelling by extending
the bellyband used on the left and rear elevations to the front and right sides of the dwelling.
Mitigated Negative Declaration: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed proj ect,
was posted on February ln �2003, in City Hall and with the County. The initial study for the proposed project
showed that there would be potentially significant impacts, unless mitigation was proposed, to the trees, soils,
and utilities and service systems on the site. A summary of the Declaration follows and the full document is
included as part of the staff report:
Redwood Trees
The 7 Redwood trees will remain on site in their current location with the proposed project. There is no
construction proposed below the top of bank, but there may be a potentially significant impact to the health
of the trees unless mitigation measures are proposed. Protective fencing should be established along the west
(highest level) of the existing rock retaining wall separating the creek and Redwood trees from the buildable
area on the site. No construction or construction materials shall be allowed to extend beyond the western
face of the existing rock retaining wall that represents the top of bank. The applicant must schedule an
inspection with the City Arborist before a demolition permit is issued to insure that the tree protection
measures are correctly installed and all requirements are being met. These protection measures will reduce
the impact of construction to a less than significant level
Soils
The applicant submitted a soils report for the site to study the removal of the existing swimming pool and the
stability of soils for new construction. The footprint of the proposed house, at the southeast corner, will be 6
inches from the existing retaining wall at the top of the creek bank. The soils report recommends that for
maximum stability of the new dwelling, the existing swimming pool shell should be removed and the area be
backfilled to a relative compaction of 95%minimum, and that the foundation type for the new dwelling should be
drilled cast-in-place concrete piers and grade beams. Adherence to the recommendations listed in the soil report
will reduce the impact of construction to a less than significant level.
Utilities and Service Svstems
The existing house merging Lots 14 and 15 connects to a 4-inch water main on Carmelita Avenue. All of the
remaining properties along the north side of the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue connect to a 1-inch water line
4
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue and terminates east of the creek. There is also existing 2-inch water line
that runs along Cabrillo Avenue to the south of the 1-inch line that serves the houses on the south side of
Cabrillo Avenue. There are no water mains running along Cabrillo Avenue in front of Lots 13, 14 or 15.
Public Works records indicate that the existing 1-inch and 2-inch water lines closest to the subject property
cannot accommodate the water demands of an additional single-family dwelling. Therefore, prior to being
issued a building permit, the property owner shall be required to prepare and submit to the City Engineer a
plan for approval for design, construction and installation of appropriate water to the proposed dwelling on
Lot 13. The service shall be designed so that it will not negatively impact the existing residences that are
services by the water mains on the 1000 block of Cabrillo Avenue.
Staff Comments: See attached.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c. Otto Miller, applicant
Eugene and Maureen Supanich, property owners
5
s
/
City of Burlingame
Design Review a�zd Front Setback Varia�ace for a New,
Two-Story Single Family Dwelling aizd Detaclzed Garage
Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Meeting Date: 9/23/02
Request: Design review and front setback variance for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.57.010 and C.S. 25.28.072 (b)(1))
Applicant: Otto Miller
Property Owner: Eugene and Maureen Supanich
Designer: James Chu/Chu Design & Engineering, Inc.
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-166-170
Lot Area: 12,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
History: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on September 9, 2002, the Commission
reviewed an application far a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue.
The Commission continued this item to design review study and requested the following information:
• Commission concerned with adjacent house since this design more like proposed than neighborhood;
need more information regarding the applicant's intention for the adjacent property;
• Opportunity to add planters along driveway side;
• Front porch should be deeper;
• Concerned with mass and bulk of house;
• Is it possible to lower plate heights;
• Beautiful setting, need stronger connection to creek;
• Possible bigger windows;
• Great opportunity to add French doors at dining room oriented to creek;
• Is applicant under contract to purchase properties;
• Concerned with creek and soils; has a soils report been prepared; and
• House feels big, should have more backyard.
The applicant has submitted revised plans, date stamped September 16, 2002 (sheets A.1-A.6 and L.1), and a
letter from the applicant date stamped September 16, 2002 to address the Commission's concerns with the
project. The applicant has provided the following information and has made the following revisions:
• The applicant has stated in attached letter that the adjacent house is currently under lease to a family
that has been living there for the last three months, that no immediate plans are prepared for the
existing house and property, and the applicant is under contact for a lease/option agreement with the
property owner which does not have to be exercised unti12003;
• A soils report has been prepared by J. Yang and Associates based on the current plans with the
general conclusion that the site is suitable from a geotechnical aspect for the proposed single family
dwelling;
• The proposed house has been reduced in size from 5,139 SF (.43 FAR) to 4,883 SF (.41 FAR) where
5,340 SF (.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed; the reduction in FAR was achieved by reducing the
length of the first floor by 1'-0" and the width by 2'-6"; the second floor length was reduced by 3'-0";
• The second floor plate height has been reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-1 ";
• The overall height of the structure has been reduced from 29'-6" to 28'-5";
• The front porch has been increased in size, now extends into the front setback and requires a front
Item # 5
Design Review Study
setback variance;
Design Review arzd Fr�ont Setback Variance for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
• A covered porch has been added on the right side with French doors opening from the dining room;
• The rear setback has been increased from 25'-0" to 32'-6", thus increasing the size of the backyard;
• French doors have been added to the family room at the rear of the house which open to the backyard;
and
• The left side setback has been increased from 10'-0" to 11'-6" to allow for planters along the
driveway.
Summary: The proposed building site is located on a lot recreated by the removal of a swimming pool on three
lots merged by the construction of a large house and pool in 1914. The applicant is now proposing to build a new
two-story single family dwelling with detached garage on the emerged lot at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1.
The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 4,883 SF (0.406 FAR) where 5,340 SF
(0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house will remain on two 6,000 SF lots. The proposed house
is adjacent to Sanchez Creek on a new 12,000 SF lot, of which 60% is above the top of the creek bed. LTI
Engineering has determined that the proposed house is outside the 100-year flood plain. (Engineering report date
stamped August 19, 2002 attached). The existing creek bed will not be changed or altered by the development
of the house.
The project includes a new detached two-car garage (427 SF) which provides two code compliant covered
parking spaces and one uncovered parking space in the driveway for the proposed five-bedroom house. In
addition, the applicants are requesting a variance for the proposed 18'-6" front setback where 22'-6" is the average
front setback for the block. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the
following:
Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010); and
Front setback variance for first floor (18'-6" where 22'-6" is the average front setback for the block (C.S.
25.28.072 (b)(1));
DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
STUDY 9/23/02 STUDY 9/9/02
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 18'-6" 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
(2nd flr): 22'-6" 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
Side (left): 11'-6" 10'-0" 7'-0"
(right): 45'-6" 44'-6" 7'-0"
Rear (Ist flr): 32'-6" 25'-0" 15'-0"
(Z�zd flr): 32'-6" 25'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,798 SF 2,975 SF 4,800 SF
(23%) (25%) (40%)
FAR: 4,883 SF 5,139 SF 5,340 SF*
0.41 FAR 0.43 FAR 0.45 FAR
�
Design Review aiad Front Setback �ariarzce for a New Two-Story SFD an�l Detached Ga�-age 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW ALLOWED/REQ'D
STUDY 9/23/02 STUDY 9/9/02
# of bedrooms: 5 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
�9� X zo�) (9� X zo�) (9� X zo�)
Heiglit: 28'-5" 29'-6" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: Meets Requirements Meets Requirements C.S. 25.28.075
*(32% x 12,000 SF + 1,100 SF + 400 SF Detached Garage)
Staff Comments: See attached.
Sean O'Rourke
Zoning Technician
c. Otto Miller, applicant
Eugene and Maureen Supanich, property owners
City of Br,�'rlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
, the planning c issioners necessary fo the environmental ment and for des' review. The
motion ed 6-0-1 (Chair Keighr staining) on a voice . There is no appe or this action. The
concluded at 10:20 p.m
9. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT;
EUGENE AND MAUREEN SUPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR.,
1NC., DESIGNERZ(65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE
ZT O'Rourke briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the applicant, Otto Miller,
should be listed as property owner or if Eugene Supanich was still the property owner. ZT O'Rourke noted
that Eugene Supanich is still the property owner, but he has given Otto Miller permission to submit plans
for development of the creekside lot.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, was present to answer questions
regarding the project. He stated that the Commission's job here tonight was to address the completeness
of the application, chief concern is the creek, applicant has worked with LTI Engineering and the Public
Works Department to insure that the development meets city creek requirements. Noted that James Chu,
designer, was available to answer questions about the design of the house and Michael Callan was also
available to answer any landscape questions. James Chu, designer, noted that the house was designed to
preserve the creek, the house to be built on a piers foundation to maintain the existing stone wall, and an
erosion control plan will be provided. Commissioner asked how does the proposed house interact in a design
sense with the existing house. Designer stated that they had been doing Tudor and French designs, thought
they would try something different, providing curved and rounded elements, trying to make the design
compatible with the creek setting, the existing house has a tile roof.
Commissioner asked if there is an opportunity to provide a planter along the driveway side by the powder
room/library to help break up the wall. Designer noted that it is possible to add a planter along that side.
Commissioner noted that the front porch should be deeper, would encroach into front setback, but would
be okay with that; might be nice to match the existing porch of the adjacent house, does applicant have any
desire to retain the existing house. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure what the applicant was proposing
with the adjacent lots, he is in the process of leasing the existing house to someone.
Public comment continued: Commissioner noted that if the house stays or goes, Commission needs more
information; how do houses correspond, concerned with mass and bulk of house; is it possible to lower plate
heights; would be nice to open the house to the creek, need stronger connection to creek, possible bigger
windows, French doors, there are a couple details that can be added upon; beautiful setting, great opportunity
to add French doors at dining room; connected to ground, size of house is huge, don't see consistency with
adjacent house, there is opportunity for the site. Commissioner asked for verification on whether a113 lots
were under the ownership of Eugene Supanich; is applicant under contract to purchase properties, when will
it close. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure of the contractual obligation of the applicant, but would make
sure that that information is provided to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo; Sally Downing, 1801 Bernal; Dan Griffins, 1030 Cabrillo; Vitus Vishon, 1704
Sanchez; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; spoke regarding the project. Was concerned with how the house will
fit in the neighborhood, in his mind the current house is a landmark property, he lives in a large 3,500 SF
house on the corner, has seen others build retangular houses in the past on similar developments, wants to
know what is going to happen to existing house, concerned with creek and Redwood trees, would like to see
10
r
City of B;�rlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
September 9, 2002
a plan to protect trees and creek, concerned that garage at rear of house down long driveway will not be used,
would like to see more character added to the house; noted that there is a long, narrow driveway proposed,
massive house on short street, should reduce massiveness, what to do with other 21ots, should look at whole
block, should hold off till other proposal, would like to know what the other plans for the 2 lots will be;
noted that there seems to be a lot of information missing, proposed house is at the maximum FAR and only
half of the lot is buildable; should protect landscape elements; existing house should have historical
designation; the proposed house eliminates the backyard of existing house, existing house is probably the
most signiiicant house in whole Easton Addition, proposal should be studied more; would support more
study on this project, historically significant house. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this proj ect is as significant as 1537 Drake Avenue. Commissioner asked for
clarification on lot emergence. CP Monroe noted that currently there is 1 lot, with the removal of the
swimming pool a 12,000 SF lot will emerge which meets the lot size requirements; the existing house will
sit on two 6,000 SF lots. CA Anderson noted that the applicant would require a conditional use permit to
re-emerge the two lots upon demolition of the existing house. With respect to design, house feels big,
should have more backyard; house too big, what will happen on adjacent lots.
Chair Keighran made a motion to continue this project when more information has been submitted regarding
the future of the existing lots. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Comment on motion: compatibility how does the proposed house fit in the neighborhood, can house be
reduced; Commissioner asked why environmental scoping wasn't required, impacts as significant as 1537
Drake Avenue. CP Monroe noted that staff could prepare a negative declaration if Commission wanted,
would need to address issues, also tree protection requirements are included in conditions. CA Anderson
noted that Commission could focus on block patterns, what's block going to look like at maximum build-
out. Commissioner noted that they need to know what the current plans are for the adjacent lot, affects
overall planning, are soils studied. Donald Chang, Senior Engineer, noted that Public Works Department
requires a soils report. Commission concerned about affects development will have on creek, is the soil
stable enough to develop on with piers, what will the on-site affects be; should look at other double lots,
what potential and how have they been developed —(1000 Bernal, 1008 Bernal); what types and sizes of
houses on these lots; Commissioner noted that if the applicant stipulates that the house will stay, then would
consider a larger house on adjacent lot; must assume everyone acts in good faith.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to continue this item when more information has been
prepared and the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
10. 1751 ESCALANTT� WAY — ZONED R-1— A�'PLICATION FOR DESIGN
CONSTRU ON PERMIT FOR A S ND STORY ADDITION EN
ARCHI T• MIMI SIEN PROPE OWNER 30 NOTICED OJECT
O'Rourke briefly pres ed the project description. C missioner asked
of uncovered parkin ace to the inner edge of the si walk. CP Monroe
parking space di nsion is allowed included in th ea between the prop y
sidewalk. re were no other questions of s .
JIEW AND HIL E AREA
YU MA, AP ICANT AND
PLANN : RUBEN HU
st about the meas ment
ted that existing covered
line and the inn edge of the
11
PROJECT LOCATION
1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Item # 9
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a New, Two-Story
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Address: 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
Item #
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: 9/9/02
Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage, zoned R-1 (CS
25.57.010)
Applicant: Otto Miller
Property Owner: Eugene and Maureen Supanich
Designer: James Chu/Chu Design & Engineering, Inc.
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-166-170
Lot Area: 12,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The proposed building site is located on a lot recreated by the removal of a swimming pool on three
lots merged by the construction of a large house in 1914. The applicant is now proposing to build a new two-
story single family dwelling with detached garage on the emerged lot at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. The
proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 5,139 SF (0.43 FAR) where 5,340 SF (0.45
FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house will stand alone on two 6,000 SF lots. The proposed house
is adjacent to Sanchez Creek and the new lot size is 12,000 SF of which 60% is above the top of the creek bed.
LTI Engineering has determined that the proposed house is outside the 100-year flood plain. (Engineering report
date stamped August 19, 2002 attached). The existing creek bed will not be changed or altered to allow for the
development of the house.
The project includes a new detached two-car garage (427 SF) which provides two code compliant covered
parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010).
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
(2nd flr): 22'-6" 22'-6" (block average)
Side (left): 10'-0" 7'-0"
(riglzt): 44'-6" 7'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): 25'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 25'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,975 SF 4,800 SF
(25%) (40%)
FAR: 5,139 SF 5,340 SF*
0.43 FAR 0.45 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Design Review for a New Two-Story SFD and Detached Garage 1036 Cabrillo Avenue
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 29'-6" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: Meets Requirements CS 25.28.075
*(32% x 12,000 SF + 1,100 SF + 400 SF Detached Garage)
Staff Comments: See attached.
Sean O'Rourke
Zoning Technician
c. Otto Miller, applicant
Eugene and Maureen Supanich, property owner
�
.
r
�rF, cirr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJNS,AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�b,,,m,,,,�•''�� TEL: (650) 558-7250
1036 CABRILLO AVENUE
r
Application for design review for a new
two-story single-family dwelling and
detached garage at 1036 Cabrillo Avenue, PUBLIC HEARING
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-166-170) NOTICE
T e City of Burlingame Planning ;
-- - -
Commission announces the following '
public hearing on Monday, September 9, i
2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose j
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed August 30, 2002 ;
(Please referto other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applica '��� �� � r�s � rafe�� � ay be reviewed prior .
to the meeting a� �� �la va D pa , ent �, � 1 Primrose Road, ��
Burlingame, Cal� rriia:� � ����� ` �,� �
.���� � �
If you chal � ge t sublect �applicatiar
raising onl hos ssues you or sor�eoi
described i t �� 'c � �. pr �1 �vi-�tt � . , ��
at� or prior�_t t �?� . �
: � �~�
Property o ers o re ive, tlus �oti��
tenants ab t thi no�'i � Fcir �ddit��q
558-7250. � � ank . u. ���.�n�« _ : ` ��
Margaret M�
City Planner
PU
� � �
�����`sv ._
� ��
�:
S
`�'
b �� �
limited to
ic hearing,
to the city
ming their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)